Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Levelling-Up Fund

Nick Smith: How his Department determined the criteria for assessing bids to the levelling-up fund; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Barclay: The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on communities across the United Kingdom. It has been jointly designed by the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport.

Nick Smith: Having waited so long, I really hope that the levelling-up fund will boost infrastructure in south Wales. I have already written to the Chancellor about the improvements that are needed for the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line, to help young people especially to get to work, so can the Minister assure me that this investment will finally be seen through?

Steve Barclay: I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to boost infrastructure in south Wales, and he is quite right to focus on young people getting to work, given how impacted they have been by the pandemic. He knows that his area in particular has received additional funding for capacity, and this will enable it to bid for the levelling-up fund to address the issues that he highlights.

Fiscal Framework Agreement

Alan Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the 2016 fiscal framework agreement between the Government and the Scottish Government.

Steve Barclay: The existing fiscal framework sets out the arrangements for a review following the Scottish elections. This will allow a settlement in the light of a Parliament’s-worth of experience, which is consistent with the Smith commission’s expectations that there will be effective operation of the fiscal framework and that it should not require frequent ongoing negotiation.

Alan Brown: The reality is that the powers of the Scottish Government are not adequate to deal with the pandemic. There are too many constraints on borrowing powers for the Scottish Government; the reality is that councils can borrow more easily under the prudential borrowing code. Does the Minister not agree that it is time the Scottish Government had more flexible borrowing powers?

Steve Barclay: The Smith commission set out the conditions, and they already give substantial borrowing powers. That is why there is up to £450 million of annual capital borrowing, £700 million in the Scotland reserve and up to £600 million for resource borrowing in relation to forecast error, and of course that comes on top of the share of UK Government borrowing provided through the Barnett formula.

Living Standards

Drew Hendry: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on living standards.

John Nicolson: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on living standards.

Rishi Sunak: The Government are committed to supporting household living standards during this difficult time for our country. That is why we announced an unprecedented package of support to protect people’s jobs and incomes and to help those most in need.

Drew Hendry: It is approaching two years since this Government said that they would review the way in which dying people were treated through social security. Meanwhile, Marie Curie and many other campaigners for change estimate that as many as 6,000 people have died while waiting for a decision on their claims. This Government have repeatedly promised to end the six-month rule, which is currently forcing terminally ill people to prove how long they have left to live before they can access fast-track support, so can the Chancellor confirm that this long overdue reform will be in the Queen’s Speech?

Rishi Sunak: It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the Queen’s Speech—I know that colleagues will understand that—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary keeps all these matters under review, and of course we want to ensure that our welfare system is compassionate and effectively supports those who need our help.

John Nicolson: My goodness, what a disastrous week for the UK Government. While they have been mired in scandal and slithering through sleaze, the SNP has committed to doubling the Scottish child payment and carers allowance and to introducing a new winter heating payment. Does the Chancellor accept that these are more noble social objectives than enriching well-placed cronies?

Rishi Sunak: What I believe to be a more noble objective is to focus on the day-to-day concerns of the Scottish people at this difficult time, which involves   making sure that the economy recovers, that the vaccines are rolled out and, of course, that our children receive the education they deserve. These are the issues that I know the Scottish people will care most about in the coming weeks.

Mel Stride: Due to the increasing concentration of wealth in older generations, the value of the average inheritance received by younger generations is becoming significantly greater through time. Does my right hon. Friend recognise this trend and the fact that it means that living standards will increasingly be determined not by skill, entrepreneurship and hard work but by chance, which will have a detrimental impact on social mobility? While it is absolutely right that families can pass on wealth to their loved ones, does my right hon. Friend none the less recognise the strong trend here, and if so, what steps might he consider taking to address this?

Rishi Sunak: I would say two things to my right hon. Friend. First, he will know that in the Budget we recently froze the inheritance tax thresholds for four years, which will provide some alleviation on the concern that he mentioned. Secondly, I believe that the best way to drive social mobility in our society is to provide everyone with the skills and education they need to make a better life for themselves, which is what this Government are committed to delivering.

Alison Thewliss: The Tories’ two-child limit, and the rape clause, which stands part of it, are having a devastating impact on living standards, with the Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England estimating that 350,000 families and 1.25 million children have been affected so far. Scrapping the two-child limit would be the easiest and most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty in the UK, so will the Chancellor scrap it or will he push more families into poverty?

Rishi Sunak: Since 2010, over 1 million fewer people are now living in poverty, thanks to the actions of this Government and the coalition, and 300,000 fewer children are living in poverty. That is something to be celebrated, but of course there is work to do and we remain committed to making those improvements.

Alison Thewliss: It is interesting that the Chancellor ignores the findings of the Church of England and the CPAG, which tell a very different story from that which he is willing to tell. In Scotland, the Scottish National party is committed to doubling the Scottish child payment, a new benefit described as a “game changer”, to £20 a week; providing free school meals to all primary children; and extending wraparound childcare. All of those are a huge help to the families that this Tory Government choose to ignore. Does this not demonstrate the choice of two futures: more austerity and more child poverty under the Tories, or a Scotland working hard to be the best place for a child to grow up?

Rishi Sunak: I am glad that the Scottish Government are able to use the over £3.5 billion of Barnett consequentials that have been provided by the UK Government over the next year. Child poverty is of course an important issue and one that we remain committed to, which is  why initiatives such as the troubled families programme are making an enormous difference to those families. Crucially, we also know that children growing up in a workless household are five times more likely to be in poverty, which is why this Government are committed to helping people find work and find well-paid work. That is something we have an excellent record of doing.

Bridget Phillipson: David Cameron said that Greensill had
“the mandate for the UK Government”.
Greensill said that it was the
“sole provider of…supply chain finance”
across Government and that it had a model that brings several benefits to the UK public sector. Does the Chancellor still believe that he was right to bring in real-terms pay cuts for public sector workers, while allowing David Cameron and Lex Greensill to target their pay packets and giving them the run of Whitehall?

Rishi Sunak: With regard to public sector pay, I do believe it is right, at a time of extraordinary strain on our public finances—when those in the private sector have seen more than 1 million jobs lost, hours cut, wages cut and many millions furloughed, with the impact that that has on them—to take a fair and proportionate approach to public sector pay. That is why this Government have said that those on the lowest pay will see a pay rise this year, as will those in the NHS. Combined with all the other pay progression, this means that a majority of people in the public sector will see their pay increase this year, despite the difficult circumstances. Of course, the national living wage is also being increased ahead of inflation, making sure that those on the lowest incomes see an uplift in their take-home pay.

Beer Duty

Giles Watling: What steps his Department is taking to differentiate the rate of beer duty for on-trade and off-trade sales.

Kemi Badenoch: The Treasury is considering the merits of differentiating products based on their place of retail as part of its alcohol duty review. We are currently analysing responses provided by stakeholders to our recent call for evidence and will provide further updates in due course.

Giles Watling: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. It is all very well conducting calls for evidence and creating reports, welcome though they may be, but we live in extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures taken quickly. I implore the Minister to press her Department to act on this matter now. Hospitality in general, and pubs in particular, are facing closure every day. Will she act?

Kemi Badenoch: I know that my hon. Friend is a fierce advocate of pubs and brewers, and he has been proposing a duty differential for several years. I should stress that I am personally very interested in this proposal, but there are a number of complex issues associated with it, including how producers and wholesalers would account for and manage their stock of beer; how to  ensure that any reduced rate is not exploited fraudulently; and how any differential would interact with the existing small brewers relief scheme. However, I would like to reassure him that we are looking closely at the proposals he has put forward.

Freeports

Paul Holmes: What progress his Department has made on the establishment of freeports.

Rishi Sunak: At the Budget, I announced the location of eight freeports in eight regions of England following a highly competitive process. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is now leading a cross-Government effort to support the winning bidders to establish their freeport, and we expect the first freeports to open later this year.

Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend authored a report in 2017, which found that freeports could easily create up to 90,000 jobs if they were as successful as the US foreign trade zone programme. Does he agree that, by voting against our Finance Bill and the setting up of freeports earlier this month, such as the Solent freeport near my constituency, the Labour party has shown that it has no interest in creating jobs and levelling up opportunity across the country, as this Government are committed to doing?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I congratulate everyone involved in the Solent freeport bid. This Government are using freeports to boost jobs, investment, trade and growth. Local communities, from Merseyside to Teesside, Humber and indeed the Solent, all agree with us and it is a shame that the Labour party does not support their aspirations.

UK Steel: Government Infrastructure Projects

Stephen Kinnock: What steps his Department is taking to increase the amount of UK steel used in Government infrastructure projects.

Kemi Badenoch: There are global challenges in the steel industry, with vast overcapacity and supply outstripping demand. However, the Government have supported the steel sector extensively, including providing more than £500 million in recent years to help with the cost of energy. Our unprecedented package of covid support  is still available to the sector to protect jobs and  ensure that producers have the right support during this challenging time.

Stephen Kinnock: Steel is central in terms of good jobs, national security and combating climate change. There can be no post-pandemic economic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry. Will the Chancellor therefore commit today to recognising the pivotal strategic importance of the steel industry by using the power of the Treasury to reduce the exorbitant electricity prices faced by our steelmakers—currently 82% higher than in Germany—so that our steel industry can compete on a level playing field?

Kemi Badenoch: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is something that we are doing. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we have already spent £500 million across the sector specifically to deal with that point. Further, we are taking a number of steps to support the decarbonisation of the UK steel industry. For example, we announced the £250 million clean steel fund to support the decarbonisation of the steel sector, including its transition to new low-carbon technologies and processes.

Abena Oppong-Asare: Jobs in the steel industry are crucial to the people of Hartlepool. In June, the first instalment of the EU research fund for coal and steel will be returned to the UK. Are the Government planning to ring fence that money to support the decarbonising and modernising of the industry, given the vital importance of protecting steel jobs for the future?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) the steps that we are taking to decarbonise the UK steel industry. As I said, there are global challenges in the industry and we have been supporting various companies. For example, last year, we provided a £30 million loan to Celsa, safeguarding a key supplier to the UK construction industry and securing more than 1,000 jobs, including more than 800 positions at the company’s main sites in south Wales. The Government will continue working with businesses to understand the issues that they are facing, including continuing to engage business sectors that are affected by covid and our changing relationship with the EU.

Retraining and Upskilling

Gary Sambrook: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support the (a) retraining and (b) upskilling of workers.

Alexander Stafford: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support the (a) retraining and (b) upskilling of workers.

Jamie Wallis: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support the (a) retraining and (b) upskilling of workers.

Marco Longhi: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support the (a) retraining and (b) upskilling of workers.

Rishi Sunak: Our plan for jobs supports retraining and upskilling by tripling the number of traineeships, expanding sector-based work academies, incentivising apprenticeship hiring and providing funding for new, free, advanced technical courses and digital skills bootcamps under the lifetime skills guarantee.

Gary Sambrook: People across Birmingham, Northfield remember only too well the impact that an economic shock can have on livelihoods and jobs in the community following the collapse of MG Rover many years ago. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that things such as the lifetime skills guarantee will allow many adults to to train and retrain to get back into  work so that they have the security of a pay packet as we ease out of lockdown and build back better following the coronavirus pandemic?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Across our nation, over 10 million adults do not have a level 3 qualification. Thanks to this Government’s lifetime skills guarantee, they will now be able to get one, and we know what that will do: it will boost both their employability and their earnings, providing them with the opportunity of a better future.

Alexander Stafford: No matter where in the country people are from, everyone should be able to get the experience and knowledge they need to get the job they want. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that the new flexi-job apprenticeships that he announced last month will boost opportunities in sectors key to Rother Valley, especially in high-end manufacturing, creating more chances for people to experience the life-changing opportunity that an apprenticeship can bring?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We were delighted to announce at the Budget a £7 million fund to create and expand flexi-job apprenticeship schemes, which enable people who need to work across multiple projects with different employers still to benefit from the high-quality, long-term training that an apprenticeship provides. That is particularly important in the industries of high-end manufacturing that he mentioned. I know that this will make a difference in his constituency.

Jamie Wallis: Young people have been particularly affected by the pandemic, including in my Bridgend constituency. Can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what support he is putting in place to help young people get back into work and to boost opportunities?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of our focus on young people. More than half the jobs that have been lost since the start of the pandemic have been of those under the age of 25 and their rates of furlough are much higher than others. That is why, acting very early last year, we created the kickstart programme, which is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I urge all Members to talk to their local businesses to get them excited and joined up to the kickstart scheme, and to provide young people with the chance of a brighter future.

Marco Longhi: Small and medium-sized enterprises are often referenced as the beating heart of the UK economy, employing the largest number of people. That is certainly the case in my Dudley North constituency and across the west midlands, so will my right hon. Friend commit to working with colleagues in the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and with business to ensure that we improve engagement with small businesses, in particular in the design and funding of apprenticeship schemes, as they need providers to deliver much more at foundation level 2, which the current funding framework is less  able to deliver? This would help to bring about the retraining revolution that our brilliant Mayor Andy Street talks about.

Rishi Sunak: The brilliant Mayor Andy Street is right to talk about the retraining revolution that we need and that he is implementing in the west midlands. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the flexibility of the system to support SMEs. I am pleased to tell him that starting this August we are implementing a new scheme to allow SMEs to link with larger, levy-paying businesses through a new matching and levy transfer service that will help SMEs to access that funding and to provide the level 2 or 3 apprenticeships that he rightly identified as being important. He should also know that that scheme was based on, I think, a pilot programme that was launched in the west midlands.

Covid-19: Support for Businesses

Sheryll Murray: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

David Simmonds: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Kevin Hollinrake: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

John Glen: Throughout the pandemic, the Government have sought to support businesses across the UK. To do this, we have put in place a package of economic support for businesses and individuals worth £352 billion since the start of the pandemic. The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have highlighted that without this intervention the UK economy would be significantly worse than it is today.

Sheryll Murray: What additional financial assistance can my hon. Friend give the all-important tourism sector in Cornwall to ensure that it is fully ready to greet the G7 in June?

John Glen: Cornwall hosting the G7 is a fantastic opportunity. I know that my hon. Friend has welcomed this chance to showcase all that Cornwall has to offer. Many organisations in the broader tourism sector have benefited from business grants of over £34 million provided to her constituency of South East Cornwall, as well as business rates holidays and a temporary reduction in the rate of VAT. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently announced the £56 million welcome back fund to support safe local trade and tourism as economies reopen.

David Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and particularly welcome the support being offered in the form of extended business rates relief. Looking to the future and with reform of business rates in the pipeline, what discussions have taken place with Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy colleagues about the potential to balance the need to secure the correct revenue to support vital local government services and boosting high streets like mine in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner through the reform of business rates?

John Glen: My hon. Friend brings a great deal of expertise and experience to this matter. The Government have committed to over £16 billion in business rates support for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure property since April last year. When combined with small business rates relief, this means that three quarters of a million retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England will pay no business rates for the 15 months from 1 April last year. The Government are, however, undertaking a fundamental review of the business rates system and have invited stakeholders to contribute their views and ideas for reform. I know that my hon. Friend will also be very pleased to see the £16.9 million of business grants that his constituents have received.

Kevin Hollinrake: Warren Buffett once said:
“What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.”
With a 50% rise in the number of companies in significant financial distress, to prevent repeating the historical mistakes of post the last financial crisis, inflicting all that scandalous treatment on SMEs, will my hon. Friend consider working with the banks to extend the very fair and sensible provisions of the pay as you grow scheme and bounce bank loans, and also transfer that into CBILS—coronavirus business interruption loan scheme—loans?

John Glen: The Treasury has, as my hon. Friend will know, amended the CBILS rules to allow lenders to extend loan terms from six to a maximum of 10 years, and that would assist borrowers in that repayment. CBILS term extension will be offered at the discretion of lenders, unlike pay as you grow options for bounce back loans, because they are different in terms of the guarantees that the Government have offered. Extensions are limited to those borrowers that lenders assess are in difficulty and will benefit from that extension, and only for the duration required. That customised approach, as I am sure he would understand given his vast business experience, is appropriate given the nature and scale of that different intervention.

Pat McFadden: When Lex Greensill was given his No. 10 business card, he had no contract and no job description, and there have now been reports that during the pandemic, the financial empire that he built may have lent Government-backed money based on invoices to companies that had never done business with his client, GFG, some of which say they had no intention of doing so. Will the Minister look into the issue of how this financing was structured and ensure that hard-working British steelworkers do not pay the price for Greensill’s collapse?

John Glen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that this Government are fully committed to examining all those matters through the review process and complying with all requests for information in order to get to the bottom of this matter.

Covid-19: Support for Self-employed People

Rupa Huq: What fiscal steps he is taking to support self-employed people as covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

Bambos Charalambous: What fiscal steps he is taking to support self-employed people as covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

Jesse Norman: The Government announced at Budget 2021 that the self-employment income support scheme, or SEISS, will continue until September, with the fourth and then the final fifth grant. This provides certainty to business as the economy reopens, and it means that the SEISS will continue to be one of the most generous schemes for the self-employed in the world, and one of the few where support is committed until September.

Rupa Huq: Is it not the case that under this Chancellor the Tories have gone from being seen as freelancer-friendly to the party of sleaze with their selective texts and promises of favours for their pals? If not, can they fix— their expression—the situation for up to 3 million people who have been excluded from all the grants the Minister mentioned, and from universal credit, and have been forced into bankruptcy, debt and worse, with 19 self-employed suicides in the past year? What are they doing about it?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady will know that the SEISS is one of the most generous schemes of its kind. The range of overall measures that the Government have taken is one of the most comprehensive of its kind in the world. I think she also knows that I personally and my officials have leant in as hard as we can to understand and to work with those groups to see whether we could extend the schemes. It has not been possible, because of features of the design of the tax system, but we have absolutely spent every effort possible to try to make it so.

Bambos Charalambous: More than 900,000 people who were self-employed at the start of the crisis, including many in the creative industries sector, now say that they are having to leave the sector as the crisis comes to an end. Does the Minister agree that the lack of support for the self-employed, who are not covered by the existing schemes, risks damaging the recovery we so desperately need?

Jesse Norman: A very large majority of the self-employed are, of course, covered by the schemes, and therefore I think that the hon. Gentleman’s concern is misplaced. Of course there will always be change in employments of different kinds, and in a dynamic economy such as ours, that is to be expected. If we can get through this desperate crisis—the worst for 300 years—with anything like any of the projected outcomes, that is something we can all, self-employed or not, be profoundly grateful for.

James Murray: In a recent letter to me, the Financial Secretary admitted that 710,000 freelancers who receive a portion of their income from dividends have missed out on covid support schemes. He recognised that most people are honest in their dealings with HMRC, but said that concerns over fraud meant
“it has not been possible to support everyone in the way they might want”.
The Government have had a year to put in place a process with adequate safeguards. Why have they given up?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, there was no admission of any kind. He asked me a question, and I responded comprehensively and fully to the question he put. The fact of the matter is that many of the people we are talking about have other forms of income. They may have pension income. They may have dividend income. They may have property income. What we have tried to do is use all the sources of information that we have that are properly assessed and certified in order to get schemes up and running—as fast as anywhere in the world, and that is an astonishing achievement. We continue to use those schemes, and we continue to work with groups to see whether others can be included.

VAT Reduction: Tourism and Hospitality

Steve Double: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the temporary reduction in VAT for businesses on the recovery of the (a) tourism and (b) hospitality sectors from the covid-19 outbreak.

Jesse Norman: The temporary reduced rate of VAT aims to support the cash flow and viability of around 150,000 businesses and to protect more than 2.4 million jobs. As was announced at the Budget, the Government extended the temporary reduced rate of VAT to 31 March 2022, with a phased return to the standard rate. This relief alone is estimated to be worth more than £7 billion to the tourism and hospitality sectors. Applying it permanently would come at a very significant cost to the Exchequer, and that would have to be balanced by increased taxes elsewhere or reductions in Government spending.

Steve Double: The past year has clearly illustrated just how important the hospitality and tourism sectors are not only to our economy, with the jobs and businesses they support in the supply chain, but to our overall wellbeing and the contribution they make to social mobility. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I know just how important this cut in VAT has been in supporting those businesses, but will the Treasury take another look at the merits of making this reduction permanent to further support the sector and the growth in jobs that it can create?

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this has been an incredibly challenging period for the tourism and hospitality sectors, and it is also right to recognise that many organisations within these sectors have benefited from the measures that I have described, including the extensions to the employment schemes, business rates holidays and the VAT reduction, as well as the very important wider restart grants and the additional restrictions grant. As these restrictions are lifted and demand for goods and services in these sectors resumes, temporary reliefs are being phased out and in time will be removed. Bridging that transition to a standard rate by applying a temporary 12.5% rate will help businesses to manage the change. We should want them to get back to normal trading and the support that they offer through that to their communities and the economy.

Aviation Sector: Financial Support

Ruth Cadbury: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on providing sector-specific financial support to the aviation sector.

Kemi Badenoch: We speak to our colleagues on a regular basis about a range of matters. The Department for Transport is in regular contact with the Treasury regarding the challenging circumstances facing the aviation sector as a result of covid-19.

Ruth Cadbury: Furlough ends in September, which is of no help to the aviation sector and airport communities, which will take months to recover even partially as we wait for the world to unlock. Many aviation businesses are on the edge financially, and they employ staff in safety-critical roles where there is a risk of skill fade if they cannot be supported. They are seeking longer-term support, as are communities such as ours in Hounslow, where tens of thousands of people depend on the airport for their livelihoods. Will the Treasury address the specific challenge of the aviation sector and airport communities well before the furlough scheme ends in September?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government recognise the challenging circumstances facing the aviation industry, which the hon. Member described. The industry can draw on the package of measures announced by the Chancellor, including not just the furlough scheme but schemes to raise capital, flexibilities with tax bills and employment support. The aerospace sector and aviation customers are being supported with over £11 billion made available through loan guarantees, support for exporters, the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility and grants for research and development. In addition, the renewed airport and ground operations support scheme, which the Chancellor announced in his Budget, will provide support for eligible businesses in England with their fixed costs for a further six months up to the equivalent of their business rate liabilities for the first half of 2021-22.

Business Investment

Marcus Fysh: What steps his Department is taking to encourage business investment.

Rishi Sunak: Stimulating private sector investment will be key to our economic recovery. The recent Budget announced multiple policies to help achieve that, including freeports, the Help to Grow programme, the future fund breakthrough, the life sciences investment partnership, consultations on reforming R&D tax credits and, of course, our radical new super deduction to support business investment as we recover from the coronavirus.

Marcus Fysh: I thank my right hon. Friend and the whole Treasury team for the extensive package of support and investment incentives over the past year; I know that businesses and employees in Yeovil are incredibly grateful for that. There is a very welcome focus in the  defence review on local prosperity in procurement decisions. Will he work with me to ensure that Leonardo and our wonderful local supply chain for the helicopter industry can take full advantage of that into the future?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for all the advice and support he has provided for me and the team over the past year as we have sought to develop policies that will help businesses, including Leonardo in his constituency, which I know he champions. He is right to highlight the opportunities of better procurement, particularly for our defence supply chain, and I look forward to working with him and colleagues to ensure that we can support his local businesses and many others across the United Kingdom.

Small Businesses: Customs Paperwork

Mohammad Yasin: What assessment he has made of the effect on small businesses of the requirement to complete customs paperwork for export to the EU.

Jesse Norman: The Government have put in place a number of measures to facilitate trade with the EU, including publishing comprehensive guidance on the new arrangements. HMRC has produced step-by-step guides, videos and webinars for small businesses that may be new to customs processes. The Government have also provided a £20 million Brexit support fund to assist small and medium-sized businesses in adjusting to new customs procedures, questions of rules of origin and VAT rules when trading with the EU.

Mohammad Yasin: Just over a month ago, the Paymaster General told me that she would follow up on my invite to Bedfordshire chamber of commerce to hear the widespread concerns of businesses that are really struggling to overcome the new and complex operational challenges around her Government’s Brexit deal. I have heard nothing. Will the Minister attend a meeting with the chamber of commerce to hear about how customs paperwork is impacting viability, or would the Treasury also prefer to ignore the problem?

Jesse Norman: The Paymaster General is always happy to take inquiries from businesses, as am I, so if the hon. Member wishes to write to me, I am perfectly happy to respond to his questions.

Steel Industry and Green Manufacturing Jobs

Zarah Sultana: What steps he is taking to (a) maintain jobs in the steel industry and (b) create new green manufacturing jobs.

Kemi Badenoch: The Government have supported the steel sector extensively, including providing over £500 million in recent years to help with the costs of energy. At the summer economic update, the Government announced an ambitious £3.05 billion package for housing decarbonisation designed to cut carbon, save people money and create jobs. Alongside that, our covid support package is still available to the sector to protect jobs and ensure that producers have the right support during this challenging time.

Zarah Sultana: My constituency is home to Liberty Pressing Solutions, part of the Liberty Steel Group. The threat of the company’s collapse risks losing good, skilled, unionised jobs in Coventry and across the country. This would be a disaster for the city and for British manufacturing, so rather than waiting for the company to go bust before taking action, risking workers’ jobs, terms and conditions, will the Government step in now, with all options on the table, including bringing the business into public ownership, guaranteeing its future and retaining the skills we need to rebuild and to tackle the climate emergency?

Kemi Badenoch: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of individual companies, due to commercial sensitivities. We are monitoring developments around Liberty and continue to engage closely with the company, the broader UK steel industry and trade unions. I recognise that reports around Liberty cause worry and uncertainty to the affected workers and their families. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that there is a lot of stuff that the Government are doing that will help her constituency. For instance, we are helping to create new green manufacturing jobs by providing support to drive the electrification of the UK automotive sector, supporting thousands of high-quality jobs in the west midlands.

Helping Young People into Work

Gordon Henderson: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to help young people into work.

Mark Menzies: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to help young people into work.

Steve Barclay: Our plan for jobs will help young people find employment opportunities, including through our youth offer and the £2 billion kickstart scheme, where 180,000 kickstart vacancies have already been created.

Gordon Henderson: I appreciate that the Government are helping to create those jobs, but it is important that young people have the confidence to learn and master a skill after leaving formal education, so how will my right hon. Friend ensure there are funds for people to do that in my constituency, including in Sittingbourne, which is the largest town in Kent that does not have its own further education facilities?

Steve Barclay: I agree with my hon. Friend that young people should have access to the skills and training opportunities they need to access great jobs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided £126 million for traineeships in England to enable an additional 40,000 places over the next academic year, and why he has incentivised apprenticeships, with up to £3,000 for employers who hire new apprentices of any age.

Mark Menzies: Measures such as the kickstart scheme are a fantastic way to help young people into work and reduce the risk of long-term unemployment. Many young people will have taken part-time or casual work to support themselves through the pandemic,  such as in Fylde’s hospitality and leisure sector, and may not be claiming universal credit. What steps will my right hon. Friend be taking to help young people get the skills and industry experience to help them move from casual employment and launch full-time careers?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is why, as well as the fantastic kickstart scheme, which he points out, the plan for jobs also expands existing programmes with proven employment outcomes, including traineeships, sector-based work academies and incentivised apprenticeship hiring. At the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £138 million for the lifetime skills guarantee to fund free advanced technical courses for adults without A-levels or equivalent and to expand employer-led skills bootcamps.

Coronavirus Business Support Schemes

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure the equitable distribution of coronavirus business support schemes.

John Glen: The Government have provided £25 billion in cash grants for businesses, and that includes the £5 billion of funding allocated at the March Budget for restart grants and the discretionary additional restrictions grant fund. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has been working closely with local authorities to ensure that these grants are delivered as swiftly as possible and directed towards the businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic.

Emma Lewell-Buck: It is clear that equitable distribution of covid business schemes is not a priority. Only those on this Treasury Bench would have the gall to claim fairness when the Chancellor and his Ministers were consumed with pulling out all the stops to support their friend the former Prime Minister on behalf of Greensill, while 3 million people were excluded from support schemes, some so distraught that they took their own lives. So to clear this up once and for all, can the Minister explain what news did Treasury officials report at a meeting on 24 April that made Greensill representatives “very pleased”?

John Glen: As I have said previously, the Government are committed to co-operating fully with all reviews on these matters. I do not accept what the hon. Lady has said with respect to the schemes that the Government have put forward over the past 14 months. Her constituency has had £16.7 million in business grants and 1,206 bounce-back loans totalling £30 million. In addition, 12,700 of her constituents have benefited from the furlough scheme, and 2,000 have benefited from the self-employed income support scheme. That is a significant contribution to help her constituents.

Loan Charge: Prosecutions

Julian Lewis: How many promoters and operators of schemes subject to the loan charge have been prosecuted for promoting and operating those schemes.

Jesse Norman: Promotion or enablement of a tax avoidance scheme is not, in and of itself, a criminal offence, as we have regularly debated in this House. However, there have been numerous cases in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made arrests or prosecuted people in relation to fraud, and particularly in relation to disguised remuneration loan-busting schemes.

Julian Lewis: My understanding is that very few promoters of these schemes have been prosecuted. Is it not rather shocking that so many people who were mis-sold the schemes on the basis that they were perfectly legitimate are being pursued so relentlessly, while the promoters are in some cases being allowed to continue their work unhindered?

Jesse Norman: The suggestion that promoters are being allowed to do just anything is quite wrong. If my right hon. Friend had looked closely at the current Finance Bill, he would have seen a range of measures in that Bill alone aimed at preventing the promotion of tax avoidance schemes and at the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, as well as other measures. HMRC takes such issues extremely seriously, and that is why the avoidance tax gap fell from £3.7 billion in 2005-06 to £1.7 billion in 2018-19—a fall of more than 50%.

Topical Questions

Chris Matheson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Rishi Sunak: This Government have supported our economy through coronavirus with more than £350 billion to protect jobs, families and businesses. As we approach the next phase of our road map out of lockdown, our support continues to ensure that we emerge from the pandemic stronger and more united.

Chris Matheson: The Financial Conduct Authority has asked John Swift QC to investigate the mis-selling of certain business loans to small businesses, as well as their response to complaints about that mis-selling. The review has refused to take into account any loans that were settled with non-disclosure agreements between the businesses and the banks, giving a skewed view and a skewed outcome. Will the Chancellor speak to the FCA and ask John Swift to ensure that all evidence is taken into account, so that we get a proper review of the FCA’s dealings?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is on an important matter. I welcome the conclusions of the Swift review, and I hope he will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene on the scope of that review, as it was set up to be completely independent of Government. That said, we have always been clear that the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products is wrong, and nothing that the redress scheme does means that businesses cannot still go to the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts if they wish. If he wishes to raise particular circumstances with either the FCA or the Swift review, he can do that directly.

Sally-Ann Hart: Brexit is a great opportunity to turbocharge global Britain, but unfortunately it has not worked so far for fishermen in my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye. Had it not been for Mr Keith Chapman setting up an export hub in Rye for local fishermen, many might not have survived. He did that at his own expense, and he has not been eligible for any of the Government funding made available to the fishing industry. What further support can be provided to assist entrepreneurs such as Mr Chapman when exports are hit by the double whammy of covid and Brexit?

Rishi Sunak: Fishing is at the heart of many of our coastal communities, and I pay tribute to Mr Chapman and my hon. Friend for their commitment to the sector. I am happy that the Government are also championing and committed to the sector, and we have announced a £100 million fund to modernise our fleet and infrastructure. That is on top of £32 million that will replace EU funding this year, and £23 million that was made available earlier to support the sector, while adjusting to new export requirements.

Anneliese Dodds: A year ago, the Chancellor personally announced the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, or “our loan scheme for large companies”, as his Department put it. Allowing Greensill Capital access to that scheme put hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and thousands of jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would publish every personal exchange related to covid contracts. Has the Chancellor published his every communication relating to Government business on Greensill, including with David Cameron—yes or no?

Rishi Sunak: We have actually responded to all the requests that I have been asked and, indeed, gone above and beyond in providing disclosure. I would say a couple of things to the hon. Lady. First of all, I am very happy to co-operate fully and constructively with both the independent Boardman review and the Treasury Committee inquiry, and those processes have begun. Secondly, on the substance, it is important to remember what was going on. We were in the midst of a financial crisis and we were keen to explore all avenues to support small and medium-sized businesses. We have heard in the House today that there are still challenges, so it was right to examine all avenues to do that. This was just one of many strands of work that the Treasury and I conducted, rightly and appropriately. It is important to notice that, in the end, we rejected the taking forward of any proposals on supply chain finance.

Anneliese Dodds: I will take that as a no. It appears that the Chancellor is less committed than the Prime Minister himself to transparency. That is not what I would call levelling with the British public. Let us see if he can level on another significant Government failure: the delay to imposing restrictions last autumn, which cost lives and our economy dear. In late October, when I asked the Chancellor if he was blocking a circuit breaker, he said,
“I agree with the Prime Minister”—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 889.]
Now it is being suggested that he sided with others against the Prime Minister. We have grown used to the Chancellor chopping and changing his mind, but can he  explain whether this change of heart is driven by science and the needs of our economy, or by the internal politics of the Conservative party?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady is confusing multiple things. She has asked me previously about circuit breakers. At the time there was a debate, appropriately, about whether a national intervention was right at a time when the epidemiology across this country was incredibly varied. That is something that the deputy chief medical officer himself spoke about at a press conference, and he said it would be inappropriate at that time to take forward national interventions. That is what I was referring to.
To go back to the shadow Chancellor’s previous comment about transparency, in fact I voluntarily published extra messages to aid the transparency of this process for people. I am fully committed to working constructively with the inquiry, both the Boardman review and the Treasury Committee inquiry. It is worth reminding the shadow Chancellor of something she herself wrote last April in The Daily Mirror:
“The ‘Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme’ seems to be stuck in the banks, and not getting to small businesses in particular, where cash flow is desperately needed.”
Well, the Government were also looking at how to get cash flow to small businesses, and I am sad and disappointed about what a conveniently short memory she has.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I wonder whether the Chancellor would order an investigation into the management of contracts between Skanska and Somerset County Council. There is evidence emerging of lazy council practices which are costing millions and millions of pounds in overpayment. We need to get to the bottom of this, and we cannot get the local county council to do it. Will the Chancellor please not only investigate, but suggest how we as MPs can force the issue before we have a complete disaster on our hands?

Rishi Sunak: In my previous job as Minister for local government, I enjoyed many conversations with my hon. Friend about local government matters. He will know it is not for the Chancellor or indeed national Government to implement redress processes. There are established redress processes, which I would be happy to write to him about, so he can seek redress for his particular concerns.

Alexander Stafford: As we emerge from the coronavirus crisis, our high streets need more support to survive than ever before, especially in former industrial areas in Rother Valley such as Dinnington, Maltby, Swallownest, Kiveton and others. Does the Minister agree that the levelling-up fund presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to inject much-needed investment into our beleaguered high streets in Rother Valley and across all our nations, returning them to their former glory? Does he agree that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council should put in a good strong bid to get that money for our high streets?

Steve Barclay: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to levelling up opportunities across the UK, including in Rother Valley. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will  invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK, including by regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and investing in cultural and heritage assets. I look forward to working with him for his local area.

Alex Cunningham: Will the Minister guarantee the future of the steel industry in Hartlepool?  Anybody will do.

Kemi Badenoch: As I said in answer to earlier questions on this issue, the Government are providing unprecedented support to the steel industry. If the hon. Gentleman has something specific to bring to my attention about the steel industry in Hartlepool, I am happy for him to write to me and I will look at the issues, but I have already answered the question and talked about the measures of support that are in place.

Bob Blackman: On 31 January, in answer to the debate on justice for Equitable Life policyholders, this House was assured that all records were being retained and would be available in the event of their being needed. Equally, we were assured that there were no plans to destroy those records. I was therefore shocked that the Public Accounts Committee, in its hearing last week, was informed by Treasury officials that the records had been destroyed and would not be available. That makes getting justice for Equitable Life policyholders more expensive, so will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and a small delegation of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, so that we can get to the bottom of how we can move this long-running saga forward?

John Glen: There has been no change in the Treasury’s position since I updated the House in January 2019. The relevant records—the data relating to all payments made under the scheme—are retained, and will continue to be so for as long as that is legal. Contrary to the press reports, there are no plans to destroy records. There is a complaints process provided by the scheme, and those who are not satisfied may take their case to the independent review panel which resolved such cases before closure. Further to the oral evidence session to which my hon. Friend referred, the permanent secretary to the Treasury will be writing to the PAC to provide similar reassurance and clarification. Since the scheme has now closed, there will be no further funding on this matter.

Sarah Olney: The Association of Accounting Technicians has published its response to the consultation opened by the Treasury on its plans to reduce air passenger duty, in which it argues that a reduction would be wrong, as it
“contradicts and greatly weakens government policy on seeking to reach ‘net zero’ by 2050”.
Why does the Government’s tax policy not support their net zero goals?

Kemi Badenoch: I am not sure exactly what reduction in air passenger duty the hon. Lady is referring to. We are increasing air passenger duty in this year’s Finance Bill.

Andrew Bridgen: A band C home in Coalville in my constituency has a higher council tax charge than a band H property in Westminster. The Chancellor, in his former position as a Minister in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the Leicestershire fairer funding model had a lot to commend it and would be used in consultation. Given that that was three years ago, will he look at an updated report by Leicestershire County Council entitled, “Putting right the years of wrong”?

Steve Barclay: Of course I would be happy to look at the report to which my hon. Friend refers. He knows that addressing future local authority resourcing is a matter for future spending reviews and the local government finance settlement. However, I would remind him that at the spending review 2020 we provided an estimated 4.6% cash increase in core spending to local authorities. That is on top of the largest real-terms increase in their core spending at the spending review 2019, and that is in addition to the about £11 billion of support that has been provided as part of the covid response.

Afzal Khan: That the Prime Minister said that he would rather see the bodies piled high than enter another lockdown is utterly despicable. My mother and parents-in-law were not bodies; they were my family, my loved ones. Grieving families like mine deserve better. We deserve a place to remember those we have lost. That is why the covid memorial wall is so important. Has the Chancellor estimated how much it would cost to make this wall of hearts permanent? If not, will he now do so?

Rishi Sunak: I am very sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss, and I know the whole House will join me in passing on those condolences. I am not aware of the particular proposal that he mentions, but if he writes to me, I will be happy to take a look at it.

Gareth Davies: The Government’s commitment to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures highlights the importance of transparency in investment portfolios. Does my hon. Friend agree that more can be done to improve transparency and prevent the exposure of investments by financial services companies to modern slavery?

John Glen: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On modern slavery, the landmark provision in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 includes institutional investors that fall within the scope of the requirement and meet the criteria requiring them to publish an annual statement.

Patricia Gibson: With the Prime Minister apparently determined to keep the VIP tax-break hotline open, and as questions remain over the No. 10 refurbishment and concerns over Government procurement are still not addressed, will the Chancellor explain whether he thinks it is time for an independent inquiry into the misuse of public funds?

Rishi Sunak: The Prime Minister has appointed Nigel Boardman to conduct an independent review of these various matters. With regard to covid in general, the Prime Minister has also said that at the appropriate time there will be all the necessary lessons to be learned.

Ian Byrne: One of my constituents who is self-employed has received no Government support in the past year. Unlike others, she did not have the Chancellor’s number to raise issues with him, so I wrote to him on her behalf. In the response I received this month, the Department acknowledged that there are people who have missed out on support because of what they call “practical reasons”. What urgent steps is the Chancellor taking to fix a system that is leaving many self-employed people facing destitution?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will know, we have covered this quite extensively in this debate so far. The self-employed scheme is very wide ranging and comprehensive. We have worked very closely with groups representing those who believe they have been excluded from the schemes—I have personally met many of them—and we have tried everything we can to incorporate them. We continue to engage with them, and we take the issue very seriously.

Tom Randall: The borough of Gedling has received more than £105,000 in welcome back funding to help its high streets reopen safely and   successfully as restrictions lift, and I will be out visiting businesses in Gedling on Friday to encourage them to apply for restart grants. Would my right hon. Friend join me in not only welcoming those lifelines for businesses but in encouraging businesses to apply for all the help available so that they can get back on their feet as we start to get back to normal?

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I salute the people of Carlton and I rejoice in the businesses of Mapperley. I encourage businesses across the constituency of Gedling to take advantage of the Government’s unprecedented package of support, including the £5 billion-worth of grant support that the Chancellor announced at Budget, which is providing a lifeline for businesses as they relaunch their trading safely.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Tulip Siddiq: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

James Cleverly: Iran’s decision to sentence Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on further charges is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified. This Government remain committed to doing all that we can to secure Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s return home to the United Kingdom so that she can be reunited with her daughter, Gabriella, and her husband, Richard. It is indefensible and unacceptable that Iran has chosen to continue this wholly arbitrary court case against Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Iranian Government have deliberately put her through a cruel and inhumane ordeal. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to end her suffering and allow her to return home.
Since her arrest in April 2016, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has faced terrible hardship and appalling treatment. This Government have relentlessly lobbied for an improvement to both the conditions endured by Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe while she was in prison and those conditions still experienced by others, including Morad Tahbaz and Anoosheh Ashoori, who are still incarcerated. Although Iran does not recognise dual nationality, and therefore views Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe as only an Iranian citizen, that has not stopped this Government from lobbying at every opportunity for their release, and her return home to the UK. We have never been granted sight of the judicial process, or consular access to our dual British nationals detained in Iran; however, that has not stopped our ambassador in Tehran consistently pressing for her full and permanent release with senior Iranian interlocutors, most recently today, 27 April.
Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, the Foreign Secretary and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have been in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. Our ambassador in Tehran has visited Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe at her parents’ home in Tehran to reiterate the Government’s commitment to do all that we can to secure her return to the UK. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with both Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband to underline the fact that the UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything that we can to achieve that.
Since Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s arrest in 2016, we have raised the case regularly at the highest levels of Government. The Prime Minister has raised it with President Rouhani, most recently on 10 March, and the Foreign Secretary’s personal ongoing engagement with Foreign Minister Zarif continues, with their most recent call being on 3 April. That lobbying of Iranian interlocutors at  every opportunity has helped to secure the release of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe in March 2020 and the removal of her ankle tag on 7 March this year.
As I have said, however, what we ultimately seek to achieve, and what we are ultimately working towards, is the release of all British dual nationals held in arbitrary detention in Iran, and their ability to return home. The UK continues to take concrete steps to hold Iran to  account for its poor human rights record. At the Human Rights Council in March 2021, we strongly supported the renewal mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, and we made clear to Iran that its repeated violations of human rights, including those of foreign and dual nationals, are completely unacceptable. The UK Government also joined the Canadian initiative against arbitrary detention on 15 February. We continue to work with G7 partners to enhance mechanisms to uphold international law, tackle human rights abuses and stand up for our shared values.
I assure the House that the safety and the treatment of dual British national detainees in Iran remains a top priority for the UK Government. Iran is the one responsible for putting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe through this cruel and inhumane ordeal over the last five years, and it remains on them to release her to be reunited with her family, and to release the others. We continue to stress that these second charges are baseless. She must not be returned to prison.

Tulip Siddiq: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The whole House will be aware that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, my constituent, has been in prison in Iran for five years now; from last March, she has been under house arrest. The Iranian authorities dangled the possibility of freedom in front of her by removing her ankle tag, but then, yesterday, announced that she had one more year in prison and another year of a travel ban—effectively, a two-year sentence.
As the news unfolded yesterday, I watched with great interest as the Prime Minister talked about redoubling his efforts to get Nazanin home and how he was working as hard as he possibly could to secure her release. If the Prime Minister is watching now, I would like to ask him what efforts he has put into trying to release Nazanin in the first place, because from where I am standing I have seen no evidence on the part of the Prime Minister so far.
At the heart of this tragic case is the Prime Minister’s dismal failure to release my constituent and to stand up for her, and his devastating blunder in 2017, as Foreign Secretary, when he exposed his complete ignorance of this tragic case and put more harm in Nazanin’s way. The Prime Minister did not even arrange for UK officials to attend Nazanin’s recent court hearing, which might have ensured that she got a free and fair trial. He still has not got his Government to pay the £400 million debt that we as a country owe Iran. We MPs might be many things, but we are not naive. We cannot deny the fact that Nazanin was handed a fresh new sentence a week after the International Military Services debt court hearing was delayed. Bearing that in mind, I have a few questions to ask the Minister. I would really appreciate some proper answers from him.
Will he acknowledge that Nazanin is being held hostage by Iran and is a victim of torture? In light of the recent adjournment of the IMS debt hearing scheduled for last week, what are the Government doing to ensure the debt is paid promptly? The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was working with our American friends on this issue. Can the Minister please explain what that involves and why the US has had more success in securing the release of dual nationals than we have? Tomorrow, another British-Iranian dual national,  Mehran Raoof, is on trial in Iran. What link does the Minister see between development in that and Nazanin’s case and upcoming talks on the Iran nuclear deal?
The Prime Minister and other Ministers might not listen to me, but perhaps they will listen to someone from their own Benches. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said today that Nazanin is being held hostage by Iran. Please, Minister—please, everyone on the Government Benches—get Nazanin released, stand up to Iran and bring my constituent home.

James Cleverly: I completely understand the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks and I can hear the anger and frustration in her voice. However, her anger and frustration are misdirected, because Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual nationals held in arbitrary detention are being held by Iran—it is on them. The situation with regard to the charges that have recently been brought against other British dual nationals, and indeed the sentence that has been handed down for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, is because of Iran, and it should be towards Iran that we direct our attention.
With regard to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s treatment, our priority has always been her full release and her ability to return home to the UK. The UK does not and will never accept our dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. We recognise that her treatment has been completely unacceptable. It is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified, and we call upon Iran to allow Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe to return home to the UK and to release from detention all British dual nationals that are being held.
The hon. Lady speaks about international co-operation. Of course we co-operate with our international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran, including the United States of America and the E3, and, as I have already said, we are working with Canada on the work that it is doing on the initiative against arbitrary detention. We will continue to focus our efforts on getting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe home to the UK and the other dual nationals in detention fully released.

Thomas Tugendhat: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to the request from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for an urgent question. It is absolutely essential that we keep a focus on this cruel and inhumane treatment of a mother being held captive as a hostage and a pawn in order to get ransom money out of others and to extract diplomatic leverage. Let us keep that focus where it really belongs: on the brutal, tyrannical regime in Tehran that treats its own people as hostages and pawns. As we focus on that, can we please focus on why the regime is doing that? It is doing it for personal profit, to sow violence in the region, and in order to mask its crimes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what sanctions are going to be brought against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has so profited from this violent regime, and, now that corruption is permitted as a reason to use the Magnitsky sanctions, how that is going to be used to ensure that the regime’s pockets are emptied and not filled.

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right to say that the blame lies with the Iranian regime—not even with the Iranian  people but with the Iranian regime. He will understand that I am not willing to discuss sanctions designations for fear that that might be prejudicial to any future success. We do, of course, recognise that Iran’s behaviour is unacceptable in a number of ways, not just on the detention of British dual nationals, but with regard to its international and regional actions, and we call on Iran to step away from the dangerous and self-destructive route that it has taken and to rejoin the international community and be a regional partner that behaves in accordance with international rules and norms.

Wayne David: After having completed a five-year sentence, for Nazanin to be given a further one-year sentence and a travel ban is truly appalling. Let us be clear: Nazanin was put on trial on a trumped-up charge of promoting “propaganda against the system” and found guilty after a sham trial. Sadly, we are seeing a sustained failure of British diplomacy. Now the Government must demand Nazanin’s immediate and unconditional release in the strongest possible terms, so that she can return to Britain and be with her family. As the UN special rapporteur has said, it is totally unacceptable that Iran is imprisoning UK nationals, Nazanin and others, in an attempt to exert diplomatic leverage. Let us not forget that other British nationals are also being unfairly imprisoned in Iran. Anoosheh Ashoori has been held for three and a half years and says that the UK Government are not doing enough to secure his release. My question to the Minister is this: clearly the Government’s approach to date has not worked, so what are they now doing to secure the release of Nazanin and the others so that they can all come home?

James Cleverly: The Government work on behalf of all the British dual nationals, whether they be held  in detention, open prison or elsewhere, and indeed of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe so that she can come home.  The UK has had some positive impact. For example, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release on furlough and the removal of her ankle tag were in response to lobbying by this Government. We want to do more. We want to ensure that the people who are held in detention are released and are all able to return home to their families. We will continue to work hard at every level of Government to ensure that that happens.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this urgent question and on ensuring that the family of Nazanin and the imprisonment of Nazanin herself are at the forefront of our minds in this House. Iran has a dreadful human rights record, with the largest number of executions anywhere in the world and the oppression of its native people. Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic then that the United Nations Economic and Social Council elected Iran for a full four-year term to the Commission on the Status of Women? Will he therefore take that up at the United Nations to say that it is totally unacceptable for a country that suppresses women and imprisons them without proper process even to be considered to represent human rights across the world?

James Cleverly: The UK Government take the rights of women very seriously, and, indeed, one of the priorities as set out for our official development assistance expenditure  is girls’ education. The election of countries to various roles in the United Nations is ultimately a decision for that multilateral forum, but I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised about Iran’s treatment of women. We call upon Iran to do the right thing, and we will continue to lobby for the release and return of British dual nationals and also on a whole range of other issues where we believe that Iran’s behaviour is unacceptable.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go to the SNP spokesperson, Chris Law.

Chris Law: The SNP’s condemnation of the Iranian Government for the painfully outrageous detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is unequivocal. Iran has never followed the rule of law in Nazanin’s case and she has never received a fair trial. Its cruelty, it seems, is boundless. The precise nature of the charges and evidence in the second case remain unclear and indistinct from the first case. What confirmation have the UK Government sought on the detail of these charges and whether Nazanin will be returned to prison, or put under house arrest, as a result of this new sentence? Furthermore, it is easy to forget that Nazanin’s case is yet another matter that the Prime Minister has blundered into and made much worse with his grossly incompetent mishandling while Foreign Secretary. He cannot continue to wash his hands of this case. Will the Prime Minister be making an apology on record to Nazanin and her family, and will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office now do all that it can with the utmost urgency to undo the damage that the Prime Minister has done to secure Nazanin’s release?

James Cleverly: What we have seen in recent days is the completely arbitrary nature of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and of other British dual nationals in Iran. This is the action of the Iranian regime and we should not let them off the hook by attempting to divert attention elsewhere. It is down to the Iranian regime. We will continue to work to secure the release of those incarcerated and the return home of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We are seeking detail, because the detail was quite sparse initially, on what exactly this means and we will be lobbying in the first instance to say that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is not returned to prison. We will continue to push for her return home to the UK and for the full and permanent release of the others who are detained.

Scott Benton: Iran has proudly announced that it is now enriching uranium to 60% purity, a move that puts the country perilously near the threshold for weapons-grade uranium. Given this latest provocative nuclear action, Tehran’s ongoing support for terror proxies and its detention of British citizens, including Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, does the Minister share my view that it would be dangerous to ease sanctions on Iran?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes an important point about Iran’s broader destabilising actions. I will not speculate as to future decisions about sanctions, for the reason that I gave to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but we are very conscious that Iran’s behaviour  on a number of fronts is unacceptable. It should return to compliance with the JCPOA, and that is what we are calling on it to do.

Layla Moran: Liberal Democrats join colleagues across the House in their condemnation of the Iranian regime’s actions. Our hearts have to go out to Richard, Gabriella and the whole family. This must feel like one step forward, two steps back. I sincerely hope that the Government are considering Magnitsky sanctions, which are surely the next step.
I am concerned about Nazanin’s current state. Redress says that Nazanin
“has already suffered severe physical and psychological impacts from the torture and ill-treatment”
and that if she is subjected to more, it could cause “irreparable damage” to her. What immediate attention have our Government directed to the Iranian regime to ensure that Nazanin’s medical needs are met in full?

James Cleverly: We are very conscious of the health of all those detained, particularly in the light of the covid situation. We lobby the Iranian Government hard and regularly to ensure that British dual nationals held in detention have adequate medical treatment, and we will continue to push for the thing that we are all ultimately trying to achieve, which is their full release and their ability to return to the UK.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this question and for her tenacious campaigning for Nazanin. I also thank the Minister for mentioning Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, the other dual nationals, because they, too, have families who are desperately upset by the incarceration of their loved ones.
What will the consequences be for Iran of this hostage diplomacy, other than words? We know that it does not fundamentally care what we think or say, and it has to know that there will be consequences. We have to do our part by settling the IMS issue, which, however unjustified, is being linked to Nazanin’s incarceration, and that is taking a very long time. Ultimately, what will the consequences be for Iran of continuing with hostage diplomacy? Otherwise, it is all bark and no bite.

James Cleverly: I thank my right hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that, as well as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, there are other British dual nationals incarcerated. The UK Government work tirelessly to secure the release of all those people. Some of them are household names and others are less well known, but we work on behalf of all of them. I assure him that we will continue to lobby to try to secure the release of them all and that we will investigate the full range of options, but, as I said, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate at the Dispatch Box as to what those might be.

Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her tireless work on behalf of her constituent and other dual nationals held in Iran. It is disgraceful that they are still held. It is disgraceful that Nazanin has had another sentence imposed on her, and she ought to be released. In the many negotiations that are no doubt taking place with the Iranian Government,  what other issues are raised by Iran? Is the issue of financial dealings between Britain and Iran in the past raised? What other discussions does the Minister propose to have with Iran in order to secure the early release of all the dual nationals?

James Cleverly: The UK does not and will never accept dual nationals being used for political leverage, so I am not going to amplify whatever claims the Iranian regime have made about them. Our message and the message that I hope the right hon. Gentleman and every other Member of the House would echo is that the Iranian regime must release our people.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend will know, in 2019, the Foreign Secretary visited Iran, where he raised the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe with Foreign Minister Zarif. Since then, what other discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Minister to try to resolve this and is any progress being made in each of these communications?

James Cleverly: As I have said, we engage regularly at the most senior levels with the Iranian Government. We had diplomatic engagement to secure Nazanin’s initial furlough and the removal of the ankle tag. Our ambassador visited Nazanin at her home last week. We raise the case regularly; the Prime Minister raised it in his recent call with President Rouhani and the Foreign Secretary did so in his call to Foreign Minister Zarif. The British ambassador to Tehran has formally protested Nazanin’s continued confinement. We will raise this on every occasion where we have an opportunity to speak with the Iranian regime. We will continue to push this until all our British dual nationals are released and allowed to return home.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Last year, Nazanin’s husband Richard Ratcliffe said he feared that, if she was not home for Christmas, there is
“every chance this could run for years.”
Was he right, Minister?

James Cleverly: I sincerely hope that he is not right. We will continue to work to bring Nazanin home and for the release of all British dual nationals. Their incarceration is unacceptable, unjustified and arbitrary, and it must stop.

Felicity Buchan: We are strongest when we work together with our international partners. I understand that several western countries have citizens who are dual nationals and suffering a similar dreadful fate to Nazanin. Will my right hon. Friend update the House as to what discussions he has had with our western allies about how we can work together for the release of our citizens?

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for the points she raises about the international nature of this situation. Of course, we work closely with our international partners —as I have said, with the E3 and the United States of America—in particular with regard to our policy towards Iran. We will work with any and all international friends and partners to bring pressure to bear for the release of  their and our dual nationals in detention. The challenge is that Iran does not recognise dual national status and therefore denies us a number of the consular access opportunities we would normally have. We will continue to work to secure the release of our British nationals in Iran.

Ruth Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her urgent question, and all that she does to champion Nazanin’s case and get her home to her family. It is a shame that the Foreign Secretary is not here today to answer the questions himself. In Newport West, the case is personal because Richard Ratcliffe’s sister is a constituent of mine, so I was determined to speak today. The United Nations has previously ruled that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s imprisonment is unlawful and ordered Iran to release her, so what are this Government doing to work through the international community to put pressure on Iran to follow their international obligations?

James Cleverly: As I said in response to the previous question, we work with and will continue to work with our international friends and partners on a range of issues with regard to Iran and its destabilising behaviour, both globally and in the region.

Edward Leigh: Is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government—or, indeed, of any previous Government—that we do, or do not owe any money to Iran?

James Cleverly: The legal situation with the IMS debt has been settled. It is a multi-decade-long problem, and we are investigating ways by which this can be resolved.

Alison Thewliss: My constituent Sarah McCullough is one of many who have been in touch over the years to express their concerns and solidarity with Nazanin and her family. Nazanin’s continued detention is a mark of failure of this Government, this Minister and his predecessors. What confidence can British citizens have in the ability of this UK Government to protect them abroad?

James Cleverly: The situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual nationals held in detention is the fault of the Iranian regime. We must never lose sight of that. It has the power to release them, it should release them, and we regularly call on it to do so and allow them to return to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom gives travel advice to help to inform British travellers when they go overseas, and we have an extensive network to give support to British travellers. We absolutely do everything we can to protect our British nationals when they are overseas and when they find themselves in a situation such as the British dual nationals in Iran have found themselves in. We work tirelessly in all respects, in all cases, to support them.

Nusrat Ghani: I know that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) looks forward to the day she does not have to bring this case to the House, and we are with her on that. Nazanin has an extra year in prison and another year of not being able to be at home with her family. As the Minister says,  this is both inhumane and unjustified, and it is squarely at the feet of the Iranian regime. Was he as surprised as I was when the United Nations, in its wisdom, elected Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women? That shows a couple of things, not just about the United Nations but also the fact that Iran wants to have credibility on the international stage. So will the Minister impress on the United Nations that one way for Iran to hold its position is to allow Nazanin and other dual nationals home?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend—my dear hon. Friend—makes an incredibly important point. If Iran wants to be taken seriously and to speak with authority on the international stage, it must change its behaviours on a whole range of issues, but most notably with regard to the release of the British dual nationals held in incarceration and their ability to return home to the United Kingdom.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his update. We all share the same frustration and that goes without saying. To say that the situation is distressing is a gross understatement. While I understand the issues highlighted, it is my opinion that something must be done to reunite this mother with her child, husband and family. Is there nothing that can legally be done by the UK Government in conjunction with other Governments, such as those of the USA and the EU, and with the UN to stop the persecution of this British citizen and the desecration of this British family?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this whole House shares the frustration at the situation that these people find themselves in, through no fault of their own. We will, as I say, continue to work with international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran. We will continue to lobby Iran to change its behaviours and to come back into the international fold. One of the most high-profile and perhaps one of the easiest things that it could do is to release these people and allow them to return home.

Simon Jupp: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to grant Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection to help her to resolve her case. This is the first time that this tool has been used in recent memory. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what further steps the UK is taking to help to secure Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release?

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for his point about the granting of diplomatic status. That sends a signal to Iran of how seriously we take the issue of our British dual nationals. This Government remain committed to doing everything we can to secure the full, permanent release of all dual nationals, including the return home of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We constantly review what further steps we might take—as I said, that is not something I am willing to speculate about at the Dispatch Box—to secure the release of all our British dual nationals and allow them to return home.

Tan Dhesi: Like many other Brits abroad, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been completely let down by this Government through   a litany of errors, including the Prime Minister’s gaffe. Nazanin and her family will doubtless be experiencing serious mental health pressures and anguish at this point in time. Indeed, her husband, Richard Ratcliffe, has previously stated that the Government’s inability to secure his wife’s return is a “failure of diplomacy”. Would not the Minister agree that this further sentence proves that he is right?

James Cleverly: Sadly, what this sentence proves is that Iran is willing to do anything to attempt to apply diplomatic leverage, using British dual nationals as the tool. We will never accept that. We will continue to lobby for the release of all the British dual nationals. As I say, the fault sits wholly, squarely with Iran.

Laura Farris: I join colleagues from across this House in our condemnation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s further imprisonment. Could I press my right hon. Friend a little further on Iran’s election to the Commission on the Status of Women? This is not just an empty title; it confers status and suggests a commitment to gender equality that Iran does not have. Could we not use our position on the UN Security Council, in conjunction with allies, to consider our own participation with the commission for as long as Iran remains a member?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The various functions within the United Nations are separate from each other. However, she does raise a broader point about the treatment and status of women in Iran. This is something we take incredibly seriously. We will continue to lobby for improvements for the status of women, both in Iran and globally, as part of our force for good agenda.

Janet Daby: The news that Nazanin will be forced to spend another two years in Iran, far from her family, is completely devastating. Anousheh Ashoori, who is also being held in Tehran in prison as a hostage, is dearly missed by his family in my constituency of Lewisham East. Over the past few days, his family have been concerned that he is showing severe signs of coronavirus. What urgent action will the Foreign Secretary take this week to ensure Anousheh gets the medical furlough he desperately needs?

James Cleverly: I thank the hon. Lady for the point that she has raised and the work that I know she has done in support of her constituent. We are aware—we have been in contact, and we are aware—of the concerns about the medical situation in the prison, and we have pushed the Iranian regime to allow access of medical professionals for, as I say, Mr Ashoori. We will continue to push for the better treatment of our British joint nationals while they are incarcerated, but ultimately for their release and ability to return home.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Paul Scully: On Friday 23 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. This is a landmark judgment, and I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming the court’s decision to quash those convictions. I will turn to what more needs to be done to address the wrongs of the past and to ensure that injustices such as this do not happen again, but I will begin by setting out the context to the judgment.
Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in post office branches. The Post Office at the time thought that they were caused by postmasters, and that led to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. A group of 555 of those postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2016. In late 2019, after a lengthy period of litigation, the Post Office reached a full and final settlement with claimants in that group.
It is clear from the findings of the presiding judge, Mr Justice Fraser, that there were real problems with the Horizon IT system and failings in the way that the Post Office dealt with postmasters who encountered problems or raised complaints in relation to Horizon. The findings of Mr Justice Fraser led the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the convictions of 51 postmasters for appeal: eight to the Crown court and 43 cases to the Court of Appeal. The Crown court quashed the convictions of six postmasters back in December 2020, and 42 further appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal in late March.
The Court of Appeal was asked in late March to decide whether the convictions of those postmasters were safe based on two grounds of appeal, namely whether the prosecutions were an abuse of process either because of the postmaster being unable to receive a fair trial or because of its being an affront to the public conscience for the postmaster to be tried. On Friday, the Court of Appeal announced its judgment. The Court decided to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the Horizon cases an affront to the conscience of the court. In the remaining three cases, the convictions were found to be safe.
In response to the Court of Appeal judgment, the Post Office has apologised for serious failings in historical prosecutions. Tim Parker, the Post Office chair, has said that the Post Office is
“extremely sorry for the impact on the lives of these postmasters and their families that was caused by historical failings.”
The Government recognise the gravity of the court’s judgment in those cases and the hugely negative impact that the convictions have had on individual postmasters and their families, as has been highlighted on a number of occasions in this place. The journey to get to last Friday’s Court of Appeal judgment has unquestionably been a long and difficult one for affected postmasters and their families, and the Government pay tribute to them for their courage and tenacity in pursuing their  fight for justice. The Government also pay tribute to colleagues across the House who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf.
However, while the Court of Appeal decision represents the culmination of years of efforts by those postmasters, it is not the end of the road. The Post Office is already contacting other postmasters with historical criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 to notify them of the outcome of those appeals and provide information in respect of how they could also appeal. The Post Office’s chief executive officer, Nick Read, is also leading a programme of improvements to overhaul the culture, practices and operating procedures throughout every part of its business. The Government continue to closely monitor delivery of those improvements. The changes are critical to ensure that similar events to these can never happen again.
Last week, the Post Office announced the appointment of two serving postmasters, Saf Ismail and Elliot Jacobs, as non-executive directors to the Post Office board. I wholeheartedly welcome those appointments. Their presence on the Post Office board will ensure that postmasters have a strong voice at the very highest level in the organisation. As part of the 2019 settlement, the Post Office also committed to launch a scheme to compensate postmasters who did not have criminal convictions who had suffered shortfalls because of Horizon, and who were not party to the 2019 settlement. The Post Office established the historical shortfall scheme in response.
Applications to that scheme were much higher than anticipated. Consequently, in March 2021, the Government announced that it would provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the scheme could proceed, based on current expectations of the likely cost. Payments under the scheme have now begun, and the Government will continue to work with the Post Office to see that the scheme delivers on all of its objectives, and that appropriate compensation is paid to all eligible postmasters in a timely manner.
While those are positive steps in the right direction, the Government are clear that there is still more to do. Postmasters whose convictions were quashed last week will also now be turning to the question of appropriate compensation, which I know will again be of great interest to the House. The judgment last week will require careful consideration by all involved. The Government want to see all postmasters whose convictions have been overturned fairly compensated as quickly as possible, and we will work with the Post Office towards that goal. I commit to keep the House informed on this matter going forward.
Finally, it is essential that we determine what went wrong at the Post Office during this period to make sure a situation like this can never happen again. To ensure the right lessons have been learned and to establish what must change, the Government launched an independent inquiry led by ex-High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams in September last year. The inquiry has made swift progress already, having heard from a number of affected postmasters and a call for evidence has recently closed. The inquiry is now planning public hearings. The Horizon dispute has been long-running. For the benefit of everyone involved, it is important that the inquiry reaches its conclusions swiftly. I look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report later  this summer. As the Prime Minister said, lessons should and will be learned to ensure that this never happens again.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
This is the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history: 900 false prosecutions, each one its own story of persecution, fear, despair, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed, lives lost, and innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I want to congratulate each and every postmaster and their families who withstood this onslaught of false accusations and fought back. I want to congratulate the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union who campaigned to get at the truth for over a decade. I want to congratulate hon. and right hon. Members across this House who fought for justice for their constituents.
I wish I could congratulate the Minister and the Government, but I cannot. I am pleased to see the Minister here making today’s statement, but the Government have consistently failed to stand with the postmasters in their quest for justice: investigations delayed, claims denied and not one word of explanation or apology as to why the Government let it take so long to clear these innocent victims.
Now, to add insult to injury, the Government are failing to deliver the proper statutory public inquiry that postmasters, their families and the British public deserve. Let us be clear: Friday’s judgment vindicates the postmasters, but to deliver justice we need a statutory inquiry with genuine subpoena and witness compulsion powers, and a specific remit to consider compensation claims. We have the greatest respect for Sir Wyn Williams, but his inquiry has no real powers and key questions about compensation, the criminal prosecutions of postmasters, and the responsibility of civil servants and Government, are outside its remit. As such, the inquiry is toothless and may even lead to a whitewash. Postmasters have been clear that they will fail to recognise and participate in such an inquiry. How can the Minister stand there with the wreck of hundreds and hundreds of lives before him, and say that this scandal does not warrant a statutory inquiry?
The sad truth is that this horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade now, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. Given the long litany of Government failure, there are a number of urgent questions for the Minister. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and time again the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the court. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today?
The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that and what are the  implications for algorithmic management? The faulty software was provided by Fujitsu. What steps are the Government taking to hold it to account? Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE. Is it right that she continues to be so honoured? The Minister referred to what he described as a full and final settlement for some postmasters with the Post Office. Their compensation was largely taken in lawyers’ fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation? Finally, does the Minister agree that actions should have consequences, and that it is therefore essential that there is a thorough criminal investigation into any potential wrongdoing?
In recent weeks, we have heard about the special access and power that millionaires and billionaires have with the Government, Ministers and the Prime Minister personally. Compare and contrast that with how the postmasters have been treated. They did not have the Prime Minister’s personal phone number. They did not have a former Prime Minister lobbying for them. They were not millionaires looking for tax breaks. They were ordinary working people. This speaks to a broader question of whose voice the Government hear and whose justice they deliver. On behalf of the working people who have had their lives ruined, I urge the Minister to apologise, own the Government’s mistakes and commit to a real public inquiry so that justice, for far too long delayed, can finally be delivered.

Paul Scully: The hon. Lady makes some important points about the length of time and the egregious nature of the situation that the former postmasters have had to suffer. She talks about the time it takes to get justice, and that is one of the core reasons why we set up the inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams. The average length of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is nearly three and a half years, which is a long time. We want to get answers now for the postmasters so that we are able to answer questions about who knew what, who did what and at what point, and learn lessons.
The hon. Lady asked about the Government’s role in this. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working well with Sir Wyn Williams, and we are participating fully in the inquiry, as are the Post Office and Fujitsu. Sir Wyn Williams clearly feels that he is getting the support, answers and participation that he needs from the relevant organisations. If that changes, clearly we can review that.
The hon. Lady talks about Fujitsu. As well as the inquiry, there are ongoing investigations with the police into wider aspects of the case. She talks about Paula Vennells. People will talk about Paula Vennells’ positions and awards—there is an independent forfeiture committee to consider awards—but I am particularly pleased that, having stepped back from her other roles, she has committed to participate fully in this inquiry. It is to be welcomed that the former chief executive of the Post Office is doing that.
Finally, the hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister not being on speed dial, or however she described it, for the group of litigants and the other postmasters. I can confirm that the Prime Minister is incredibly interested in and exercised about the situation, as we all are. He wants to make sure we work with the sub-postmasters  to get them the justice they want and compensation for the prosecutions, through discussion and dialogue and by working with them and the Post Office in the first instance.

Peter Bottomley: Knowing who did what will matter, but it is clear why it happened. In 1999, the Government withdrew from the contract and it became one of the worst private finance initiatives ever.
To know what happened, people should pay attention to the investigative journalists and what Lord Arbuthnot said. Computerworld in 2015, Computer Weekly in 2009 and Private Eye in 2015 laid out what the problems were. Second Sight, in its report, showed 12,000 communications failures a year between the terminals and the centre. There was a suggestion that some of the machines’ recordings of tax disc income, cash machines and other things were not coming through. I want to know whether Ministers and senior people in business, whether suppliers or customers, will pay attention not to glossy reviews saying how good things are, but to investigative journalists who say how bad things might be for the innocent. Until those innocent people, who were forced to plead guilty when they were not, are reimbursed the money they had not taken, we cannot sit quietly here in this House.

Paul Scully: I thank the Father of the House for his comments. There is no sense that this inquiry is glossy in any sense. Sir Wyn will get the technical support that he needs to understand exactly the points that my hon. Friend makes, including the testimony in the court cases. In the call for evidence, there is an opportunity to listen to the magazines that he referred to, including Computer Weekly, and other journalists who have covered this.

Marion Fellows: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. He will hear from both sides of the House, and we are all going to be beating the same drum, but I do not apologise for repetition in this important statement.
The Minister stated that the chair of Post Office Ltd has apologised, but I note with regret that there is no direct apology from this Government. Yet again, this Government are acting as though the Post Office has absolutely nothing to do with them. I remind the Minister that the Government are the single shareholder in Post Office Ltd and civil servants sit on the board, and therefore the Government must apologise—in fact, the Prime Minister should apologise.
The Court of Appeal’s decision shows that there has been a devastating failure by Post Office Ltd during Paula Vennells’ leadership. She should be stripped of any titles and any additional compensation received as a result of her inexplicable decision to continue legal proceedings in spite of what was known about Horizon at the time. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) that it is much more important that a statutory, judge-led inquiry is launched, so that all who failed sub-postmasters are held to account. That would be meaningful progress in the pursuit of justice, rather than a token gesture. Sir Wyn Williams will do his best and will bring forward many things that need to be looked at, but we need a statutory inquiry. Will the Minister agree to that?
Horizon has united Members across the Chamber. Will the Minister therefore agree to meet the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, which I chair, to discuss in detail and agree a way forward that will ensure justice for sub-postmasters?
Finally, sub-postmasters deserve to be fully compensated for having their lives devastated by Horizon and the injustices that followed, without detriment to the current post office network. The Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance needs to be compensated. It has not been properly compensated yet, as its legal costs swallowed up any compensation that it received at the time. Will the Minister agree to cover the legal costs of the 555 sub-postmasters involved in civil action against Post Office Ltd and all costs accrued by Post Office Ltd in payment of compensation?

Paul Scully: The Department is indeed the single shareholder in the Post Office. This has been going on for so long that we have gone through various models of ownership of the Post Office and various names of the Department, but throughout, we have worked with Post Office management, who have reported back about how Horizon was believed to have been working. We will continue to make sure that these questions come out of the independent inquiry, led by Sir Wyn Williams.
In terms of a statutory inquiry, I have covered some of these areas, but it is important to make sure that we are driven by the outcomes for the sub-postmasters, although we differ in some ways on the process to get there. I will happily discuss this further with the APPG.
On compensation, the group litigants have had that money in the final settlement. It is incredibly frustrating and difficult for them that they have been pushed from both sides, with the extremely high costs of their litigation and the drive from the Post Office, but we will continue to work with the Post Office to make sure that postmasters have adequate justice and see their compensation discussed in full.

Andrew Bridgen: Unfortunately, in part due to the serial failure to act by successive Ministers, I and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and others, have been forced to campaign for sub-postmasters, including my constituents Mr and Mrs Rudkin, for the past 10 years. Given the huge miscarriage of justice now fully exposed, including the 10-year attempted cover-up by the Post Office, will the Minister concede that only a full public inquiry and independent compensation panel for victims will now suffice finally to lance this boil?

Paul Scully: As I said, an independent inquiry is looking into the actions of the Post Office and the responsibility of the Government within that, and everybody is participating fully. To ensure that we “lance the boil”, the Post Office has launched a historic shortfall scheme, which has started to make payments, and those whose convictions were rightly quashed last Friday will be considering compensation. We will ensure that the Post Office addresses that in quick order.

Karl Turner: I was present in the Court of Appeal on Friday for their lordships’ judgement and the formal exoneration of those innocent former sub-postmasters. Millions of pounds  of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on pursuing unnecessary and unjust prosecutions. When will the Government order Post Office Ltd to call off its lawyers, who have been instructed to search desperately for a defence to the indefensible?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman has represented his constituent, Janet Skinner, as both a constituency MP and a former solicitor, so he has a lot of experience of this. We will work to ensure that the Post Office does not defend anything that is indefensible, and that we get answers. That is exactly what Sir Wyn is there to do, and he will produce his report by summer so that we get answers this year.

Lucy Allan: The Minister is a decent, able man who I know will do his best to put right these terrible wrongs. Some 555 sub-postmasters showed tremendous courage and dignity in the group litigation against the Post Office, which concluded in 2019. Will the Minister ask his officials whether his Department authorised the Post Office to use millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to fight the sub-postmasters in that litigation, waging a war of attrition on them, purely to disguise the Horizon failings? Will he ask whether his predecessor, the Minister responsible for post offices in 2018-19, was aware of that, and if not, why not?

Paul Scully: The litigation was taken on entirely by Post Office Ltd, and my hon. Friend does not need me to ask those questions, as they are exactly the kinds of questions that Sir Wyn Williams will be asking throughout his independent inquiry, which will report back in summer this year.

Christine Jardine: I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the inquiry and compensation, but will he assure me that the Government will commit to seeing former sub-postmasters as individuals, and to treating each case with importance for all those who have faced more than a decade of accusations and had their life burdened with legal difficulties due to the Post Office’s mismanagement? Many have lost their homes and been refused insurance. Will they each be treated individually and not simply as one overarching scandal?

Paul Scully: The hon. Lady makes a crucial point: each and every single one of these people, whether they were prosecuted or “just” suffered a shortfall, is a human being. I see the anger on social media and the tears in some of the interviews following the quashing of the convictions; we cannot fail to realise that these people have suffered so tragically and terribly over so long a period. The Government and I will absolutely treat everybody as individuals. This has come at human cost.

Jerome Mayhew: The group litigation of 2019 performed an enormous public service by bringing this miscarriage of justice to light, but although successful, those involved paid an enormous price for that public service, because most of their compensation was diverted away into legal fees, leaving just £15,000 per victim. That is grossly unfair. The Minister has referred a couple of times to the full and final settlement that has been reached for them, and it is true that that is the contractual  position, but it is open to the Government to look behind the contractual position and actively compensate these people in full. Is that something that the Minister will consider?

Paul Scully: Before we look at wider compensation, I want first to understand and make sure that we can learn the lessons and find out exactly what happened and when. This happened over a 20-year period and we need to unwind those 20 years, but we want to do that as quickly as possible so that we can get a timely response and justice for those people, rather than waiting for the three, four or five years that a statutory inquiry might take.

Kevan Jones: The Minister said that this was a landmark judgment; I just wonder what it is going to take for the Government actually to take action. People’s lives were ruined. People went to prison. People took their own lives. Surely the way forward now is, first, for the Government to put in place a compensation for all those who lost something. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) just made a good point: it was the Government and the Post Office that spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money basically to bankrupt people so that they had to settle.
What is actually needed is a judicial inquiry, because the toothless inquiry that the Minister has set up will not have any powers to force people to give evidence. Without that, we are not going to get to the truth, because the guilty people need to be exposed. I know that the Minister has said he is trying but, alas, I have dealt with numerous Ministers over the past 10 years and I think his name is going to be added to the board of useless Ministers we have seen dealing with this issue over the past few years. We need action now, Minister, not more words.

Paul Scully: The right hon. Gentleman talks about unpicking something that happened over 20 years and describes a landmark judgment, then expects it to be dealt with within three days. That belies the complexity and depth of the situation. The decisions on Post Office Ltd’s litigation strategy were taken by the Post Office. The Government were not party to the litigation; they monitored the situation and challenged the approach taken by the Post Office.
The right hon. Gentleman also talks about the fact that the non-statutory inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams cannot compel people to give evidence, but at the moment everybody is participating in that inquiry. If that changes, obviously our view will change.

Jacob Young: I welcome this decision and thank and congratulate the postmasters who led the campaign to right this wrong. What more can be done to prevent a similar miscarriage of justice from occurring in future? Will the Minister join me in thanking the postal workers in Redcar and Cleveland for their hard work throughout the pandemic?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend works tirelessly for his constituents in Redcar and Cleveland. It is right that he highlights the future prospects of the Post Office and its role and social value moving forward. That is why we need to get the answers now, so that we can not only give the former sub-postmasters justice but draw a line to prove and demonstrate that lessons have been learned and that this can never happen again.

Zarah Sultana: The wrongful conviction of the sub-postmasters is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British legal history. Post Office bosses aggressively prosecuted workers in spite of full knowledge that the Horizon data system was unreliable and that many convictions were unsafe. People’s lives were ruined, with some tragically passing away before their names were cleared. To get the answers that workers deserve and hold to account those who were responsible for this injustice, will the Government heed the Communication Workers Union’s call for a proper public inquiry into what happened, put it on a statutory footing and give it the necessary powers to compel witnesses and require them to give evidence under oath?

Paul Scully: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Bob Neill: The Post Office wholly failed in its duties and obligations as a private prosecutor. It did so to such a degree that it constituted a gross abuse of that role. In consequence, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the role of private prosecutors within our system. Many behave responsibly and properly but, to learn lessons, will the Minister take away our report from October, sit down with ministerial colleagues from the Law Officers Department and the Ministry of Justice and look at further recommendations—for example, a binding code of conduct for prosecutors, including disclosure obligations; a register of prosecutors; notification to all defendants who are subject to a private prosecution that they have the right to a review by the independent Crown Prosecution Service; and extending the role of the inspectorate of prosecutors to large-scale Crown prosecutors? Those helpful measures could prevent such a disgraceful injustice from ever happening again.

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. There are clearly wider lessons to be learned from this, as well as the direct lessons about who knew what in the Post Office. It is about justice and how private prosecutions work, although there has not been a private prosecution in this area for a few years now. We also heard stories about people pleading guilty to lesser charges to try to avoid prison. That is not justice as we see it. There are clearly wider lessons to be learned that I am sure the Government will look at.

Alan Brown: Following on from that point, the reality is that the Post Office remains the only body in the UK to run its own prosecutions and it starts from an assumption of guilt when it comes to disputes. Here, for Horizon, it acted as judge, jury and executioner, operated at standards way below the CPS and blocked the forensic account in Second Sight’s Horizon review. When is the Post Office going to be stripped of these prosecution powers? When will a fair dispute resolution process be put in place?

Paul Scully: As I said earlier, there have been no private prosecutions in this area for a number of years, but clearly there are lessons that need to be learned. That will be addressed in the inquiry.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is a very good Minister and the Government have, of course, inherited this problem, but, as a House,  we have to recognise that this is a grotesque breach of the human rights and civil liberties of up to 555 litigants—our fellow citizens. It is right up there with the acts that we quite rightly complain about in some foreign countries. There may well be inadequate Post Office management, but a Government permanent secretary is the accounting officer and the Government urgently need to do the right thing. In respect of the inquiry that is already commissioned, will the Minister ensure that the evidence, advice and words of Lord Arbuthnot from the other place, who has consistently championed this issue and has been proven right, are loudly heard?

Paul Scully: I should have congratulated earlier Lord Arbuthnot on the work he has done in this area. I know Sir Wyn Williams will note my right hon. Friend’s words, to make sure that Lord Arbuthnot’s words, deeds and campaign are heard within the inquiry, because there are many pertinent points that need to be included in the considerations.

Kate Osborne: Earlier this year, I asked the Minister about the 555 sub-postmasters who took the Post Office to court and won the original litigation. Many of them, such as my constituent, Christopher Head, were left with nothing after court costs. How can the Minister possibly not agree with me and the current CEO of the Post Office that if proper justice is to be served for every single victim of this scandal, they must have their claim validated under the historical shortfall scheme, to prevent two tiers of justice? It seems to me that it is only this Minister and this Government who believe that that is okay.

Paul Scully: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work. Christopher Head, one of the youngest sub-postmasters involved in this situation, has been through years of distress, so I can understand that anger. We will continue to work with the Post Office and with all parties to make sure that we not only get justice, but provide that reassurance that we are listening and that we are addressing the cause of all people affected by this scandal.

Diana R. Johnson: The Horizon scandal, as we know, has destroyed the lives of many people, including that of my constituent, Janet Skinner. The behaviour of the Post Office is best summed up by what the Right Reverend James Jones said in the Hillsborough inquiry about the
“patronising disposition of unaccountable power”,
the denials and the cover-up. To get to the truth, I hope the Minister will reconsider the need for a full statutory public inquiry with the powers to compel evidence and witnesses. This short, quick inquiry that the Minister has referred to without these powers will surely fail.

Paul Scully: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and ask her to forgive me for ascribing Janet Skinner to be the constituent of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). None the less, I know that her voice has been heard via many Members in this House. On the non-statutory inquiry, at this stage, Sir Wyn Williams is getting full support from each of the parties that he is investigating. If that changes, our advice will change, too. At the moment, things are working well, and he is getting the co-operation that is required.

Laura Farris: The sub-postmasters suffered a grave miscarriage of justice, but the circumstances that gave rise to it—defective technology twinned with a recalcitrant and inflexible employer—could easily happen again, particularly as technology and artificial intelligence are being rolled out in workplaces across the country. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a place in the forthcoming employment Bill for new provisions to protect against this?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend raises some interesting points, and we certainly need to reflect on the wider implications of the situation. Clearly, the independent inquiry is addressing the direct implications on those sub-postmasters and as they affect Post Office Ltd moving forward, but there are also other implications that the Government need to consider.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Convicted, jailed, persecuted, taken their own lives, made bankrupt, reputational damage and mental and physical anguish for years, yet still no one at all at the Post Office or Fujitsu has been held to account for this horrendous injustice. There are also those in Government who became acutely aware of this scandal, yet remained completely passive in their duties on the board of the Post Office. Is it the Post Office, Fujitsu, or some Government Members that the Minister is protecting by resisting a statutory public inquiry?

Paul Scully: No, indeed. We want to make sure that we can get these answers quickly for sub-postmasters who have already waited up to 20 years for a sense of justice. As I have said, statutory inquiries can take more than three years to get these answers. I want a report on my desk this summer to report back to postmasters, and Sir Wyn is getting the co-operation that he needs to get answers.

Joy Morrissey: Does my hon. Friend agree that postmasters provide the backbone of the Post Office and will he join me in thanking Jay Patel, the Patel family and Jaspal Singh who provide vital services to communities across Beaconsfield, Hedgerley and Burnham? Will he continue to fight for justice and compensation for those who have been exonerated and take on board the excellent suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) of looking at how we prevent these type of scandals from happening in the future?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that she is a champion for community services in her area. That is what the Post Office does—not only is it a business, but it adds social value, as Jay Patel and his family continue to do. That is why we need to get answers. That is why we need to get justice. It is to give existing and future postmasters the confidence that they can work in a great organisation that is offering that social value and supporting their communities.

Alison Thewliss: Hundreds of postmasters running their local community businesses have had their lives and livelihoods turned upside down, and their reputations and their finances trashed. Will the Minister assure me, further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), that full legal costs will be included in the compensation package to postmasters?

Paul Scully: We are working with the Post Office in order for it to come forward with thoughts and plans for the compensation scheme. We will make sure that we are leaning into that to ensure that everybody is adequately compensated moving forward.

Jason McCartney: I have constituents who are among the hundreds of victims of this appalling scandal. One has been telling me this morning that she could not even be in London last week to hear the outcome of this judgment because she could not afford the cost of travel. What mechanism is going to be in place to compensate these victims swiftly and fairly?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend is right to champion this. The Post Office, first, needs to engage with all the appellants to make sure that they are compensated fairly. It is that fair compensation that we as a Government will be pushing for to make sure that the Post Office acts quickly.

Sammy Wilson: For over a decade now, hundreds of postmasters have lived with the ruination of their reputations, the loss of their businesses and homes, criminal convictions, in some cases imprisonment, and untold mental misery. In contrast, those who lied about the failures of the Horizon system, covered up its defects and withheld information from the courts have been rewarded with public honours, promotion and lucrative Government contracts. The postmasters who refused to give into the institutional power of the Post Office, which used its financial might to silence them, deserve to be congratulated. But more than that, Minister, they deserve full and fair compensation and an inquiry that will properly hold to account those who the judge said were responsible for appalling
“failures of investigation and disclosure”,
which had made the prosecution of these honest people
“an affront to the conscience of the court.”
The real test will be: is that what the Minister will give them?

Paul Scully: This inquiry is getting the co-operation of all those people participating and involved. If that changes, clearly, our advice and view will change, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is so important that we make sure that nobody can hide from this, so that we do get those answers and that those postmasters get justice.

Virginia Crosbie: Margery Lorraine Williams and Noel Thomas, both from my Ynys Môn constituency, were among those who had their lives turned upside down by this appalling miscarriage of justice. Does the Minister agree that postmasters such as Ian Ashworth, who runs the post office in the Chocolate Box, next to my office in Holyhead, provide vital services to our communities across the UK? Does he further commit that the UK Government will act to ensure that this can never happen again?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend is right. We have the likes of Ian Ashworth across the country offering social value. People will be interested and want to act as postmasters only if they are confident that they have the backing of the Post Office that something like this—as happened to Noel Thomas and Margery Lorraine Williams—can  never happen again. We need to get those answers and, through this inquiry, we need to ensure that this can never happen again, as my hon. Friend said.

Tan Dhesi: Once again, the likes of me are here questioning a Government Minister and demanding justice for those devastated by the Post Office Horizon scandal, but the Government have dithered and delayed for years over providing a full statutory inquiry, thereby prolonging the agony of the victims, who are still waiting for an inquiry wherein the judge can compel evidence. Rather than the toothless inquiry set up by the Government, why is the Minister not committing to providing the victims with the proper statutory inquiry that they rightly deserve?

Paul Scully: Because the evidence is coming forward. There is no point in compelling something that is already coming forward. Having said that, if that changes, our advice and our thoughts will change, but at the moment, everybody is participating in the inquiry. Sir Wyn Williams is happy and content that he is getting the information and co-operation that he requires to get answers.

John Redwood: Will the Minister understand that there has to be compensation, and urgently, and this compensation has to cover not just the Horizon losses but the legal costs and the loss of business and income that people suffered from the damage to their reputation?
Many MPs, including myself, told past Ministers that this was an accounting scandal—it was not a sudden outbreak of mass criminal activity by good public servants. They deserve better, and this Government must now apologise by making sure they get proper compensation.

Paul Scully: Indeed, it is important that the Post Office engages with all the appellants who have had their convictions quashed. As we are getting those answers, we will work to ensure that we can get fair compensation.

Mick Whitley: This gross miscarriage of justice has taken a terrible toll not only on the wrongly convicted sub-postmasters who have endured so much suffering and struggled for so long to see justice, but on the local communities that rely on post offices as precious community resources. In the wake of this scandal, can the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that every community has easy access to a post office?

Paul Scully: There are universal access provisions for the Post Office. Although, yes, we are giving them a network waiver because of the effect of covid at the moment, we will make sure that we are up to 11,500 post offices across the country, with access criteria to ensure that the most vulnerable are closest to a post office and have those services that add such social value to their communities.

Greg Smith: Postmasters are coming under increasing pressure and workload as many banks turn their backs on the high streets, not least in the towns of Winslow, Princes Risborough and Buckingham in my constituency. Given that increased pressure and increased workload, will my hon. Friend recommit to  holding the Post Office fully to account—not just to give justice to those affected by the Horizon debacle, but to fully support postmasters and win back trust?

Paul Scully: Winslow, Princes Risborough and Buckingham are just like many villages and towns across the country, where banks are starting to reduce their branch numbers. I have talked about social value; it is important that the Post Office fills that gap, and provides access to cash and services for the most vulnerable. That is why we need to get the answers to ensure that sub-postmasters coming forward have the confidence and really want to come and work for a forward-looking organisation, not one that has had such an egregious recent past.

Chris Elmore: I pay tribute to my constituent, Mr John Bowman, who lost his home as well as his business, like the constituents of so many other Members across the House. One of the things that hurt him most, which he has talked about to me extensively, is the way in which the Post Office behaved; it simply looked to the criminal proceedings of those sub-postmasters, who, in the end, we now know had done nothing wrong. Will the Minister confirm that the current inquiry is expressly forbidden from looking at the Post Office’s prosecutorial function? Given this, will the Minister reconsider setting up a fully judicial inquiry into the scandal so that postmasters such as Mr Bowman get the justice they actually deserve?

Paul Scully: What I can confirm is that the inquiry will look into the Post Office’s approach and the “who did what” in its approach to the sub-postmasters, because clearly that heavy-handed approach early doors did lead to prosecutions. As I have said, there are wider considerations for the legal process, including private prosecutions, and we will need to learn from this.

Kevin Hollinrake: I have used this quote already in the Chamber today; Warren Buffett often says:
“What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.”
When we finally discovered the 10-year cover-up of a fraud at Lloyds, we inexplicably let Lloyds run its own compensation scheme, which three years later was determined to be not fair or reasonable, and we had to do it all again. Will my hon. Friend at least put in place independent oversight of this compensation scheme to ensure that all those who have suffered get fair, reasonable and consistent compensation, whether they have been through litigation or not?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend has been consistent in his campaigning in this area, and what I can say is that we will be ensuring that the Post Office provides fair, consistent and speedy compensation within the structures, as will be outlined over the next few weeks and months.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for his statement. We will have a three-minute suspension to prepare for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Tool Theft (Prevention)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Greg Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons selling second hand tools online to show the serial numbers of those tools in searchable advertisement text; and for connected purposes.
Tool theft is at a crisis point in this country. More than half of builders in the United Kingdom have fallen foul of tool theft. A survey of tradespeople by Opinium last year found that roofers had been the worst-hit group, with 65% saying that tools had been stolen, followed by electricians at 58%, plumbers at 55% and carpenters at 54%. Tool theft is not just happening in one or two areas; it is blighting businesses up and down the country. Pick up a local paper, and there is a good chance of finding a story about tool theft.
The impact can be devastating, with builders having to beg and borrow whatever is available to get by. It is not only the inconvenience and the cost of having to buy new tools; tradespeople are missing out on work if they do not have the correct equipment to complete a job. When asked how many working days builders had lost to tool theft over the past 10 years, one in three builders said that one to two working days had been lost, 16% said two to five working days and 7% said that they had lost five working days or more. Despicable as this is, criminals have no misgivings about preventing others from going about their work and providing for their families. These tools mean the world to their owners, and the thieves have no idea of their true value. Indeed, workers often start out with cheaper tools and buy better ones over time as their businesses grow. They are a sign of the pride people take in their work.
Research from Direct Line for Business shows that more than £83 million-worth of tools have been stolen across England and Wales in the last three years. This equates to £83,500 of equipment going missing every day. Data from the Federation of Master Builders reveals that 38% of these incidents involved theft from vans. Indeed, a tradesperson’s van is broken into on average every 20 minutes. A further 34% of thefts are from building sites, 7% are from a shed or garage at home, and 3% are from inside the home. It goes without saying that tools are not cheap. The average value of a reported stolen item is £385, with the most common value of overall loss standing at £2,500 in a single theft. One in 10 builders say that they have had at least £10,000-worth of tools stolen, and 2% said that they have had at least £20,000-worth taken from them.
It also goes without saying that an incident of theft significantly sets a business’s finances back. Let me give the example of my constituent, Barry Phipps. Barry has been a builder for 38 years, and for the past 15 years, Barry and his wife have run their Princes Risborough-based building company, BEP Contracting Ltd. BEP has been responsible for thousands of building projects locally, but Barry, like far too many builders, has been the victim of three separate tool crimes, with burglaries from his home, his storage yard and his vehicle. Barry has lost in excess of £40,000-worth of tools—tools that are vital to his ability to earn a living and support his family, and his ability to provide local employment and to purchase goods and services in the area.
Because of the second-hand market for stolen goods, Barry has far too often seen tools that cost more than £500 new being offered for sale for as little as a tenner. These can include tool belts full of a builder’s collection, some built up over many years and passed from craftsman to apprentice, being sold underground for the price of a packet of cigarettes. Barry tells me that because of the prevalence of this type of criminality, van insurance companies are now charging premiums comparable to those for a new driver, forcing many young builders to have no financial protection from the theft of tools in their vehicle. Barry has yet to be reunited with any of his stolen tools over the years. Indeed, just 3% of tools are ever returned to owners. As there is often a sad assumption that reporting the theft will be a waste of time, I fear that van break-ins are too often under-reported. Tool theft is also taking its toll on builders’ mental health. The Federation of Master Builders tells me that tool theft has led to 15% of builders suffering from anxiety, one in 10 builders suffering from depression, and some reporting experiences of panic attacks and, very sadly, even suicidal thoughts.
During my time in this House, this has been a particularly impactful issue for the residents of the town of Buckingham in my constituency, where thieves have targeted parked vans in the area. My constituents want to see action taken to combat this criminality, and they are not alone, because 84% of tradespeople do not believe that enough is being done to prevent tool theft. Beyond the usual arguments about more bobbies on the beat, which I am delighted this Government are already providing, and things like CCTV, the challenge for all of us in this House is to ask ourselves what practical measures can be put in place to prevent this from happening in the first place.
From my past involvement in community safety and crime prevention, I do understand that there are many ways to stop or deter crime without placing further pressure on our police. Indeed, following a spate of tool thefts in the town of Buckingham last year, talk of how to tackle this problem was alive on a local community Facebook forum, and it was among the comments on that discussion that the idea behind this Bill was formed.
We know that those who steal tools do not do so to complete a DIY project at home—to put up some shelves or re-do the kitchen. Tools are stolen in order to be sold and monetised, and most stolen tools end up for sale online. As criminals become more sophisticated, and with meagre regulations and little scrutiny of third-party sellers, they find online platforms to be efficient channels to sell stolen items and monetise their crimes.
Online marketplaces often display thousands of tools for sale with no address and no serial numbers, providing anonymity—a shield allowing criminals to hide in plain sight. To tackle that, I am bringing forward this proposal that online marketplaces should require individuals selling second-hand tools to show, in a searchable format, the serial numbers—the unique identifiers—of all such items. The use of serial numbers would close down ways for people to turn their stolen goods into money, and it would facilitate the ability of victims, the police and insurance companies to track down stolen items.
A better and more comprehensive tracker is what is needed, coupled with a database from which information on these serial numbers can be sourced. That would help the police to respond quickly and would have the  effect of introducing traceability. There could even be technological procedures in place where these online platforms are continuously searched against a database for reported stolen items.
Of course, I am not suggesting this is some sort of magic bullet that will solve tool theft overnight. Clearly, not all stolen tools are sold on the internet, but many are, and every opportunity to monetise these ill-gotten gains that is shut down will help to stop such crimes for good. I believe that the relatively simple measures in this Bill could encourage people to come forward and report this type of crime, and a tradesperson themselves could search such sites to find their stolen goods. I submit this Bill as a practical way of removing some of the incentive to commit the crimes in the first place.
I fear that there is a perception that commercial crime, such as stealing from tradespeople or businesses, is less injurious to the victim than, say, a home burglary, but that is not the case. The reality is that, with these crimes, thieves are depriving honest people of a means to work. Putting this measure in place will go a long way to combating tool theft and protecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of tradespeople. Let us take this step—a much-needed step—so it can play its part in the overall mission of stamping out tool theft once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Greg Smith, Paul Bristow, Nick Fletcher, Andrew Griffith, Jane Hunt, Dean Russell, Jim Shannon and Alexander Stafford present the Bill.
Greg Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 294).

Fire Safety Bill

Consideration of Lords message

After Clause 2 - Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants pending operation of a statutory scheme

Christopher Pincher: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4J.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments (g) to (l) in lieu of Lords amendment 4J.

Christopher Pincher: I want first of all to thank all hon. Members for joining in this crucial debate, because all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes. I want to reiterate in the strongest terms the importance of the Bill as a step along the way to delivering that objective, and the risk that we would create if we were to continue to allow these remediation amendments, however well-intentioned, to delay legislation.
The Bill was introduced over a year ago. We are almost at the point of getting it on the statute book, and it is vital that we remind ourselves of the fundamental purpose of what we are seeking to achieve—to provide much-needed legal clarification of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and direct the update of the fire risk assessments to ensure that they apply to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. I will give way briefly to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but I want as many hon. Members to speak as possible.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Ministers have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not bear the costs of the fire cladding scandal. Why is he insisting today that they should?

Christopher Pincher: The right hon. Gentleman knows of the very significant amount of public money that we have set aside to remediate those buildings that are the most at risk of fire, where serious injury might take place, and the financial provisions that we have set aside also to help other leaseholders. If we do not resolve the Bill this week, fire assessments will not cover those critical elements of which I spoke, and they may continue to be ignored by less responsible building owners. Moreover, the fire and rescue services will be without the legal certainty that they need to take enforcement action. Ultimately, that will compromise the safety of many people living in multi-occupied residential buildings. Without the clarification provided by the Bill, it will mean delaying implementation, possibly by a year, of a number of measures that will deliver the Grenfell inquiry recommendations.
As I said, I want as many Members as possible to have the opportunity to speak, so I will say no more for the moment until I wind up the debate, save for reiterating two points. First, these remaining amendments, although laudable in their intentions, would be unworkable and  an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this. Secondly, the Government share the concerns of leaseholders on remediation costs, and have responded, as the House knows, with unprecedented levels of financial support to the tune of over £5 billion, with further funds from the developer tax, which the Treasury will begin to consult upon imminently, as well as the tall buildings levy. Developers themselves have begun to announce more significant remediation funds.
It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we do not put at risk the progress that has been made by failing to get the Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the shadow Minister, may I reiterate that this is a very short debate with a long list of speakers, which is why I have put a three-minute limit on Back Benchers? Obviously, if colleagues can be shorter than that, we might actually get everybody in.

Sarah Jones: The Sunday Times reported two days ago that the Bank of England is worried that
“Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.”
The Bank is worried about the scandal’s impact on property values, as new data from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership shows that fire-risk flats can sell for as little as one third of their purchase price. That is devastating and requires an immediate response from the Government.
The Government surely should not need reminding that a collapse in house prices triggered the global financial crisis in 2007, but it seems that they do, and it seems that they also need reminding of the misery that this crisis is causing hundreds of thousands of people. The safety scandal that has unravelled in the wake of inaction and indecision since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 has left up to 1.3 million flats unmortgageable and affects thousands of recently built houses. As many as 3 million people face a wait of up to a decade to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe, and we have leaseholders who face repair bills of up to £75,000 for flaws such as flammable cladding and balconies, and missing fire breaks.
We stand here today while thousands watch this debate and suffer, worrying about their futures, getting into debt and facing bankruptcy. We have to ask ourselves what the Government actually care about. They do not appear to care that the Bank of England thinks that we are heading for a financial crisis. They do not appear to care that thousands and thousands are living with anxiety, fear and debt. They do not seem to care that the vague and undefined loan scheme that they have hailed as the answer—despite having promised many times that leaseholders will not have to pay—will damage people’s property prices and will not actually be in place, as we hear today, for at least two years, leaving thousands to pay mounting waking watch bills and stuck in properties that they cannot sell.

Stephen Doughty: I completely agree with the points that my hon. Friend is raising. She will know the suffering of my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. Does she  agree that the UK Government need to get around the table with the Welsh Government and provide clarity on how those taxes will work, and how money will flow from the building levy and the tax? The UK Government have not yet done that. We have finally had an answer to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, and the Welsh Government have put aside money, but they are not clear how much money is coming from the UK Government.

Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend has raised that point many times, and he is standing up for his constituents in a way that I am afraid that this Government will not.
What do the Government care about? We are left with one possible answer. Do the Government care only about the donors who keep their Prime Minister in fancy furniture, so that he can spend £60,000 on curtains in No. 10, while nurses and key workers out there face £60,000 bills for cladding with no wealthy Tory donors to bail them out? Do the Government really care only about big property developers, such as European Land and Property, which developed a block of flats in Paddington that used the same aluminium composite material cladding as was on the Grenfell Tower, and which has donated £2.5 million to the Conservative party since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017? Do the Government really care only about Britain’s biggest builders, who have built up vast profits during the pandemic, such as Persimmon—

Christopher Pincher: Peter Mandelson. Tony Blair.

Sarah Jones: The Minister is shouting names at me from a sedentary position, but he is not answering the question. I do not want to be right. I do not want that to be what the Government care about. I honestly always believe the best in people and applaud my colleagues from across the House who have stood up for their constituents time and again on this, but even they are asking why else the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are ignoring a financial and human crisis on such a growing and worrying scale.
Let us vote today to start putting this right and prove me wrong. It is not just Opposition Members who support amendments to protect leaseholders. A recent poll from YouGov commissioned by the National Housing Federation found that three quarters of MPs, including two thirds of Conservative MPs, say that the Government should pay the costs of all building safety work up front and then claim it back later from those who are responsible. I have not heard a single argument that bears any scrutiny as to why it is okay to let leaseholders foot a bill for tens of thousands of pounds, or to sit by as homeowners face bankruptcy or decades of lingering debt.
We welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans, which would put into law a guarantee that building owners cannot pass on the costs of any remedial work to leaseholders in the time before the Government introduce their promised legislation. I am also very interested in the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), which propose that the Government should follow the polluter pays principle.
Yet again, the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. This is a betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders will not be left to foot the bill.  The Minister’s argument that it would delay further works does not work. If the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill?
The Bishop of St Albans’s amendment would buy the Government some time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government come up with a longer-term plan. We ask the Minister again, if he does not think that the proposed amendments are right as they are, why not amend them? Why, when it is directly in their gift, will the Government not pay to fix these problems and then go after the building companies and developers that are responsible? Leaseholders deserve justice now.
I want to end by remembering the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire nearly four years ago. The inquest is a daily reminder of the impact of the bonfire of regulations under David Cameron and the lack of care that the Government took over the last 11 years. For the memory of those who died, we must right these wrongs, we must learn the lessons and we must protect the hundreds of thousands who face daily uncertainty, fear and bills. I say to all Members: back the bishop today, vote for the Lords amendment and start to put this right.

Rosie Winterton: We now move to a three-minute time limit. I call Royston Smith.

Royston Smith: The longer this debate drags on, the more damaging it becomes to the Government and the worse it becomes for innocent leaseholders. On Saturday evening, there was a fire in the tallest tower block in Southampton. That building has ACM cladding. As I understand it, it was alight. Hampshire fire and rescue responded quickly and dealt with the fire with its characteristic professionalism. Fortunately, the fire was not too serious, but it could have been. What would we be saying today if the worst had happened, I wonder?
I have said from the start that there are three dimensions to the fire safety scandal: the moral, the economic and the political. The moral obligation is obvious: this Government have a duty to hold those who are responsible to account and to defend the innocent leaseholders. There should be no disagreement on that issue.
Secondly, on the economic, the Government clearly think that my concerns about toxic debt, mass bankruptcy and repossession are wrong, but it is not just me who thinks it is a risk. The Bank of England is concerned, too—so concerned that it is assessing whether the fire safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis. With up to 1.3 million flats unmortgageable, perhaps the Government should be a little more concerned about the economic issue.
Finally, on the political, the Government believe in the home-owning democracy. It defines us. We have encouraged it. We have incentivised it. In fact, many people would not be in their own property without the support of Government. How do we look ourselves in the mirror when we have helped people to buy a home in a dangerous building that is worth less—sometimes much less—than they paid for it? The truth is that most  MPs, including Conservative MPs, agree that the Government should resolve this issue. They believe, as I do, that it should not be the taxpayers who pay, despite what some in government have been saying. It should be those who are responsible—the manufacturers, the developers, the National House Building Council and development control. Some of those, of course, are local authorities. The Government can underwrite what is needed and then take it back from the industry. It may take years, but we will charge interest. It should be those who are responsible who pay.
We have been accused of wanting to kill the Fire Safety Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Government wanted the Bill to succeed as much as I do, they would do what was necessary to get the Bill through this place and the other place, but they have thus far chosen not to. After today, the Bill will go back to the Lords, and it will, in all likelihood, come back again. The amendment may come back with a different name and moved by someone else. If that happens, the Bill may well fall. That will not be my fault or our fault. That will be the Government’s fault.

Hilary Benn: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). Here we are again debating a Lords amendment to protect leaseholders from having to pay to fix construction defects and unsafe cladding that never were and never should be their responsibility, and yet Ministers continue to resist, even though they have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not have to bear the cost. The trouble with this endless debate is that the clock is ticking and innocent leaseholders continue to face unreasonable costs as bills now start to arrive demanding sums of money that they simply do not possess. One constituent wrote to me last week enclosing a photograph of the bill he has just been sent, for £27,000. Another thinks that their bill will be £40,000. They obviously cannot remortgage their flats. So I ask the Minister: what are people in this situation meant to do? Sadly, we know that the Government do not have an answer to this, or indeed to the mental and emotional torment that these people are being put through. That is why this amendment is needed, and needed now.
Even taking account of the Government funding already announced, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership estimates that about two thirds of the total cost will still fall on leaseholders: the very people whom the Government say should not pay. The Association of Residential Managing Agents estimates that the average remediation bill will be about £50,000 a flat and that insurance costs have risen by 400%. The Government estimate that the average cost of a waking watch outside London is over £2,100 a year for each flat. Leaseholders in shared ownership properties are in a particular bind. The building safety fund is moving too slowly. There is a shortage of companies who can, or will, do the work. There is total uncertainty as to what is meant to happen when we know that there are other works that have to be done to make buildings safe but for which the Government are not prepared, so far, to offer funding. I find it very hard to believe that Ministers do not understand that the remedy they have come forward with so far is patently insufficient, or that, without a comprehensive plan, leaseholders will, month by month and year by year, inevitably face financial collapse because of the huge burden of costs being put on their shoulders.
In conclusion, can I assure the Minister that the growing number of MPs who support the Lords amendment are not going anywhere, and that is because our constituents have nowhere else to go?

Stephen McPartland: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate.
It is unfortunate that this is the third time the House of Lords has felt it necessary to return this Bill to the House of Commons. That is because their lordships, like many MPs across the House, feel that the Bill cannot progress without some form of protection for leaseholders. It completely astonishes me that people in government cannot hear the screams of pain of leaseholders begging for help—people who are going bankrupt and people who are being hit with high insurance premiums. We were told only last week of an insurance premium for a building that was £11,963 last year but £242,400 this year. People are being hit with bills of £6,000 each with seven days to pay them and no recourse to help. With waking watches, there are interim bills that are going through the roof. Leaseholders cannot pay this; they cannot afford this. The reality is that these buildings will not be made safe by transferring the financial and legal liability on to leaseholders. Leaseholders do not have the funds to fix it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said, we, leaseholders and leaseholders’ groups do not want the taxpayer to pay; we want the taxpayer to provide a safety net to help. We believe that those responsible should pay—nobody else.
Nobody wants this Bill to fail. We are nearly four years on from Grenfell. The Minister mentioned Grenfell in his opening remarks. I would like to read him a statement that has been issued by Grenfell United:
“The fire safety bill is back in the commons. Government is using the excuse that the amendment will delay Grenfell recommendations. The amendment is to protect leaseholders from charges. The FSB is separate & it is wrong to claim support of it damages recommendations. Using Grenfell Recommendations to justify government’s indifference is deeply upsetting for us and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created. Our request is simple: implement Grenfell recommendations make homes safe & protect lease holders from financial ruin. Nearly 4 years since Grenfell and yet not a single piece of legislation has been passed. Homes have to be made safe this is a basic human right. We ask all MPs that committed to ensuring Grenfell 2 could not happen to do the right thing today by us and the thousands of leaseholders effected.”
Grenfell United and the people affected there have spoken. Leaseholders up and down the country are speaking. Our constituents are speaking and Members of Parliament are hearing them. The Bishop of St Albans has tabled an amendment to try to provide the Government with the opportunity of the time and space to come forward with a compromise. I urge the Government to compromise and bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords later today to help support leaseholders.

Matthew Pennycook: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I thank their lordships for the tenacity and perseverance they have shown over many months in standing up for  all the blameless leaseholders affected by the cladding crisis, including the many thousands who live in one of the more than 70 affected buildings in my constituency.
In seeking last week to persuade their lordships to cease insisting on amendments designed to protect all leaseholders from remediation costs, the Minister for Building Safety argued once again that such provision is unnecessary and that to continue to seek to amend the Bill in such a way would risk its passage in this Session, could increase fire safety risks and might “ultimately cost lives”. Yet it is the very fact that this crisis is already ruining countless lives that led their lordships to insist once again that this place reconsider, and they were entirely right to do so.

Stephen Timms: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I wonder whether he has visited claddingscandalmap.co.uk, which maps 450 buildings with 60,000 homes affected by this scandal. It also shows the Members of this House who are voting to force leaseholders to pay towards the costs.

Matthew Pennycook: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have seen the site in question, and it brings home—I know he shares my feelings, as his constituency is so close to mine—the fact that certain parts of the country with high numbers of new build properties, including constituencies such as ours, are particularly badly affected. I have tens of thousands of constituents affected.
As welcome as they were, the five-point plan and the additional grant funding that the Government announced on 10 February are still only a partial solution to the cladding crisis, and they consciously and deliberately leave a significant proportion of leaseholders exposed to costs they cannot possibly hope to bear. For significant numbers of leaseholders, that exposure is not some theoretical future risk, but a reality that they are already confronting.
To take just one example, I had a lengthy exchange yesterday with the right-to- manage directors of a small 24-unit building in east Greenwich, Blenheim Court, which requires urgent remediation and is under 18 metres in height. As things stand, not only are the leaseholders in question living with the punishing uncertainty of not knowing if or when their building might be issued with a forced loan of the kind the Government propose, but because they do not have the funds to commence remediation works, they are struggling with myriad secondary costs, including a soaring building insurance premium, which has led their service charges to increase from about £2,500 a year per flat to more than £130,000—I have seen the invoice, and the figure is correct—and there is a very real risk of mass defaults as a result.
Every week that this House fails to act, more leaseholders are placed in similar situations and put at risk of negative equity and bankruptcy. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government will ultimately be forced to bring forward a more comprehensive solution that protects all affected leaseholders from the costs of fixing both cladding and non-cladding building safety defects. Seeking to pass the costs on to even a proportion of them will almost certainly mean that the works simply do not get done. Unless this House is content to follow that path and see many more lives needlessly destroyed in the interim, it must act today and take decisive steps towards resolving this crisis.
I urge Ministers, even at this late stage, to honour their commitments previously given from the Dispatch Box and come forward with a sensible concession. If they do not, I urge MPs from across the House to protect blameless leaseholders and support the amendment in the name of the Lord Bishop of St Albans in the Division Lobby shortly.

Liam Fox: I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I am grateful for the support from all parties for them. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) for the work they have done on this issue.
We have to find a way forward. We cannot continue this sterile ping-pong between the two Houses of Parliament. We need an actual plan, and I believe that my amendments set out a workable way that the Government can take this issue forward.
There are three issues that need to be dealt with, the first of which is forfeiture. The idea that people’s properties can be repossessed because they have been unable to pay cladding costs, which are unjust in the first place, is abhorrent. We need to reform leasehold legislation to prevent that from happening.
Secondly, we need a proper plan for apportionment of costs, as I set out in the appropriate persons for fire safety order costs amendment. That means that taxpayers are not asked to write a blank cheque, and nor will those with responsibility have the ability to collapse a company so that they can avoid costs at a future date. We have got to ensure that the “polluter pays” principle is applied in this case.
The third thing we need is a real-time study, by the Department, to look at real people with real bills who are facing real negative equity and insurances issues, and who have difficulty accessing the building safety fund, given the narrow timescale and the fact that there are too few experts able to get them into that process. I therefore suggest the following.
How do we do this? First, on 11 May in the Queen’s Speech, we need to bring this issue forward in leasehold legislation, and deal with it once and for all. The Government have the ability to give us that assurance. Secondly, the long title of the forthcoming Building Safety Bill needs to be framed in such a way that we can deal with amendments relating to appropriate persons for fire safety order costs. That is also within the Government’s gift. Thirdly, if the Minister looks at my constituency of Portishead as a microcosm of the problems we face, he will see there are some buildings above 18 metres and some below; some have good management, some poor management. There are people with good copies of all the bills and who can tell a story to real officials in real time. All these things are possible. I set them out in the amendments as a route out of the sterile position in which we find ourselves.
We cannot simply continue passing this issue between the two Houses of Parliament. Our voters expect Parliament to come forward with solutions. We can find a genuinely practical way forward. We are two weeks from the Queen’s Speech. We can bring this legislation forward and enable the House to come together and provide solutions for our constituents in the way that they have the right to expect, and we have the duty to provide.

Shabana Mahmood: Four years have passed since the Grenfell tragedy, and once again the House is debating whether or not to protect leaseholders from the costs of remedying fire safety defects caused by a failure of regulation and negligence, as well as by deceptive practices in the building industry. Meanwhile, the Government continue to dither and delay, and order their MPs to vote against amendments designed to protect leaseholders. Make no mistake, the funds that the Government have made available thus far have taken too much time to come on stream. The money will not ultimately be enough to meet the scale of the crisis and, crucially, interim costs are not covered.
On top of all those costs, today we have heard about the cost of insurance. I have lost count of the times that I have pleaded with the Government to do something about insurance costs. In my constituency there have been insurance increases of 1,000% in affected buildings. Those are shocking figures, and this shocking situation is falling on deaf ears as far as the Government are concerned. Long before any cladding is removed from these buildings, the people living in them will have been ruined by the costs of insurance and interim measures such as waking watches to keep their buildings open. There is simply nothing left to remedy the internal fire safety defects as well. Leaseholders need the protection that the Lords amendment would offer.
We should never forget that at any point, a further tragedy could—God forbid—occur. That is a terror that leaseholders in Brindley House in my constituency have had to face, because on 31 January this year there was a fire in a flat in their building. I have seen the burned-out husk of that flat for myself. The fire service said that the residents were only two minutes away from the fire engulfing the whole of their building. Two more minutes and the windows in that flat would have shattered, and the cladding wrapped around that building would have caught fire. When I heard that, my blood ran cold. Can the Minister imagine what it must be like for the people who live in Brindley House? That is the risk, that is the fear, and that is the scale of the financial ruination that people in my constituency and all over the country are trying to cope with.
One of my constituents recently said to me that he now thinks it will be less stressful to declare himself bankrupt and become homeless than to try to find a way to carry on as a leaseholder. At the very least, the Government could and should support the Lords amendment, or indicate a clear way through the crisis, so that we send a clear signal to all leaseholders that we will stand with them.

Bob Blackman: I start from the principle that successive Secretaries of State and Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box that the leaseholders are the innocent parties in this scandal and that they should not have to pay a penny piece towards the costs of remediation. I applaud the Government for coming forward with £5.1 billion of public money to support the remediation of unsafe cladding, but our problem is that it is not enough. The estimate now is that £15 billion will be required and that the extra £10 billion will have to come from leaseholders as the last resort, because building owners will naturally pass that on to leaseholders wherever they possibly can. They are the ones in situ; they are the ones facing these huge bills.
The Government say that further proposals will come forward on the forced loan scheme. We were promised in the earlier statement in February that the loan scheme would be announced at the Budget. Now, I did make the assumption that that was the Budget in 2021, not the Budget in 2022 or 2023. The reality is that the evidence given to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and other bodies suggests that the forced loan scheme is nowhere near being available. We as Members of Parliament are not even able to scrutinise the proposal, so those who are living in blocks of flats of six floors or less do not even know how that scheme will work. My estimate is that many people will end up with a bill that will last for 100 years, therefore factoring in, almost inevitably, a dramatic reduction in the value of their properties. Equally, we know that the fire safety remediation required in addition to the remediation of unsafe cladding almost dwarfs the costs of remediating the cladding. All those costs will once again be passed on to the innocent leaseholders.
I understand that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has to defend this position and clearly wants to get the Fire Safety Bill on the statute book. Let us be clear. I do not think any MP wishes to prevent the progress of the Fire Safety Bill. What we do need, however, is surety and assuredness, because the draft Building Safety Bill will almost certainly take 18 months to two years to bring to fruition. The leaseholders do not have that time to wait. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he finds the amendments defective. Well, there is still time. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) that there is a solution. If the Government reject that solution, let them come forward with their own solution in the House of Lords. Let us agree that the leaseholders do not have to pay a penny and the Fire Safety Bill can go on the statute book, as we would all like to see.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister should be very careful. The speeches in this debate today are an example of Parliament at its best and Government at their worst. The Minister has heard Members from across the House, and from his own party in particular, criticise what the Government are doing. He would be a very wise Minister to listen to Parliament. If he refuses to listen, I think he should think about his future.
In March this year, leaseholders in Wembley Central apartments in my constituency were told that in response to the publication by the Government of the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018, a waking watch system would be implemented as soon as possible. The cost of the waking watch patrols would be recovered from leaseholders in the sum of £91,380 a month. The cost of the remedial works to the fire alarm system across Central Apartments, Ramsey House and Metro Apartments is estimated to be in the order of £250,000 to £300,000. The owners said that they were unable to say the total cost of all four recommendations and that they therefore could not advise the liability of each leaseholder.
I find it unacceptable that the Government are imposing billions of pounds of costs on leaseholders retrospectively to remedy misconduct by others, such as the developer, the builder or those producing the Government’s own  advisory documents and in particular building regulations control. The fire survey for these particular buildings said:
“There is evidence that the junctions between compartment floors were inadequately fire stopped…as there were gaps at mineral wool fire barriers at steel framing. There were no visible fire barriers at vents or around windows/door frames and it could not be confirmed that the window/door frames themselves formed cavity barriers.”
That indicates that at the time of construction the building regulations then in force were not followed. That means that these people were sold a building that was not fit for habitation, yet the Government are not pursuing the people responsible; they are making sure that it is the innocent parties who will pay. Their lives are being ruined, as Members in all parts of this House have said. It is vital that the Government address this and accept the Lords amendment. In particular, they need to focus on addressing the very real issues in building control regulations that allowed this scandal to happen in the first place.

Derek Thomas: The Government’s plan and funding to address this fire safety issue are a welcome start. I am not going to rehearse the points already made this afternoon, but I believe that the role of affordable home ownership schemes in this disaster has been overlooked.
Many people engulfed in this scandal are first-time buyers who took their first step on the property ladder through Conservative-backed schemes intended to boost home ownership. People use these schemes because they are not cash rich, but they are now facing unexpected bills for life-changing sums, and some are being asked to take up further Government loans to pay them. The drafting of this Bill means that despite owning only part of the value of their flat, leaseholders are potentially liable for 100% of the share of the costs. In effect, they are subsidising their landlords, who own the remaining percentage of the value of the flat but pay nothing to remedy the defects. Leaseholders have always had to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of buildings they do not own, owing to the way leasehold agreements work, but the building defects and costs involved to fix them are beyond what anyone could have contemplated.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read out a case study of a future constituent —someone hoping to relocate to my constituency. This individual owns a one-bedroom flat in the Olympic village in London, in which she has a 35% interest, and is seeking to move to Penzance, in my constituency, to be with her fiancé. The flat was sold to her as a low-risk investment; she was encouraged by the shared ownership Government scheme, as part of their affordable housing directive. Her block was found to have missing fire cavity barriers, rendering it a B2 rating, warranting remediation, with the bills potentially being in excess of £50,000 for her flat alone. The housing association is trying to bring the developers to account, something that legally it is not required to do. Failing that, this will result in a lengthy legal battle, during which she may well be presented with the bill for remediation work in order to make the block fire safe and adhere to the Government’s new guidelines. Applying for a grant under the Jenrick announcement for remediation works is an extremely slow and complicated process. If the housing association does not succeed in getting the  perpetrators to fix their mess, she will get the bill, and as a shared owner she will be liable for the full 100% of the bill, not 35%, which is the share she owns of the property. In any case, it is highly unlikely she will be able to sell property for years to come and buy into the Cornish economy by purchasing a house.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has put forward very pragmatic proposals to unlock the deadlock and improve the fire safety of homes across our nation, and I would welcome the Minister’s response to these sensible proposals,

Daisy Cooper: Over the weekend, it was reported that the Bank of England is assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis—why? It was because 1.3 million flats are unmortgageable and as many as 3 million people face a wait of up to 10 years to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe.
This scandal has gone on for too long and it has already caused too much damage. This Government must accept the Lords amendment that would protect leaseholders from exorbitant costs, or they should drop this Bill altogether and bring back a better version in the Queen’s Speech. It is simply incredible that the Government have had 10 whole months to break the deadlock and propose a solution that they find acceptable, but they have refused to do so. Instead, they wage a campaign of scaremongering, telling us that if the Bill fails it will have the effect of increasing fire safety risks. Well, that is not the view of the leaseholders in my constituency; it is not the view of the leaseholder group; and it is not the view of the Cladding Action Group. They are speaking with one voice and they are clear that they would much rather see this defective Bill fall than pass in its current form.
The devastating consequences of accepting the Bill unamended cannot be overstated. Millions of leaseholders who are already facing financial ruin through no fault of their own live with the terror of this Bill passing into law. If it does, they will be landed with even more extortionate bills, perhaps within a matter of days. The Government’s intransigence—their outright refusal to budge—is making the situation so much worse, to the point where I believe we now need an inquiry into the Government’s response to the fire safety scandal.
How much money have leaseholders already had to pay out? How many people have been driven to bankruptcy? How many have been made homeless? How many leaseholders have been pushed to the brink of suicide? Do the Government really think it is okay for 3 million people to have to wait up to 10 years before they are free to live in a fire-safe home? Do the Government think it is acceptable that leaseholders have no viable legal routes to challenge those who are responsible?
The cladding scandal and the fire safety scandal have been a protracted nightmare for leaseholders, and the Government’s failure to address the fire safety scandal properly is now a scandal in itself. I urge all colleagues to support the Lords amendment, because millions of homeowners are relying on us all to do so.

Iain Duncan Smith: I support holding the Lords amendment. I think it is the right thing to do at the moment,  although not because it is perfect—it is far from perfect and not without its flaws. My problem is that I do not see the Government responding to the overwhelming concern about what is happening to leaseholders, many of whom, as has been said before, were first-time buyers.
We face, today, an issue of concern both personal and public. The public concern is that the devaluation of these homes is now so dramatic that it will cause an economic shock. I remember the old negative equity problem that erupted as a result of a collapse, and I do not want to see us back there again. I accept that, as has been said, the Government have already put £5.1 billion into the process, but it is worth at least another £10 billion in settlement, and that is going to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders.
Let me relate what is going on in my constituency. Like everybody else, I have a set of estates, including Queen Mary’s Gate and Blackberry Court, among other blocks in my constituency. Many of them are under 18 metres and have cladding—this is the point that has been raised—that was not compliant at the time of their building. The leaseholders did not know that—they bought their homes with a sense that they were buying something that was right and reasonable—and are now not eligible for the safety fund.
What has happened because of all this? We have tried to get hold of the developer, Telford Homes, but it has not engaged for more than a year now. Telford Homes does not answer anything or engage about what it might do; it has gone to ground. That is the problem that lies at the heart of all this right now: there is no way that the leaseholders can get redress because they cannot go to those who did this wrongly at the time and the Government have not brought forward any mechanism to allow leaseholders to get after these individuals, who will sit there and wait for the leaseholders to waste their money.
The Lords amendment is not perfect, but I am trying to articulate a cry for help from my constituents and others around the country. I agree with and support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). Let us find a way to make sure that those who were responsible stand up and pay the bill. They have made a lot of money in the past, legitimately, on building homes; those who did not put up the right cladding should automatically be in the frame. Meanwhile, the costs spiral and my constituents will pay them.
Today, for the first time, I shall vote to maintain and hold the Lords amendment. I say to the Government that if they do not want it, they had better get to the Lords and get us something decent that allows us to give support to our leaseholder constituents, because that would be doing the right thing.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I speak in favour of the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment. As the UK Cladding Action Group has previously reported, there have already been leaseholder suicides and, worryingly, 23% of those surveyed by the group have considered suicide or self-harm.
The Government must realise that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They must understand that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders  in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is entirely unfair. They must recognise that there is no support available at all for interim measure costs, including increased insurance premiums and waking watches, which often run into figures of more than £15,000 per week.
To add further devastation, as we have heard today, Inside Housing has reported that even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans face a wait of potentially years. In the meantime, many residents still live in unsafe buildings and are understood to have already received requests for up-front payment, with freeholders sometimes instructing solicitors to carry out debt recovery. This could result in a tide of bankruptcies and evictions. The situation is so bad that I understand that analysts at the Bank of England are now assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.
It is clear that the Government’s approach is untenable and it must change today. Even the National Housing Federation states that the only way to prevent leaseholders and social landlords from having to pay to remediate buildings they did not construct is for the Government to provide up-front funding to remediate all buildings. I hope all MPs today can recognise the moral duty they personally have to protect our constituents and will vote in favour of the Lords amendment.

Bob Neill: I had very much hoped that it would not be necessary for us to continue to have this debate in relation to this Bill. The core elements of the Bill are worth while and I support them. Unfortunately, however, it creates a set of potential liabilities upon wholly innocent leaseholders, without giving them an adequate means of redress. That is simply unfair. It is unfair on my constituents and it is unfair on people who have bought properties in good faith and who have relied on professional advice and the regulatory regime that was then in force. If there are people who were at fault, either in the construction of the buildings or in the way in which surveys were carried out, they should absolutely be held to account, but the people who should not end up with a liability are the leaseholders, who have acted in good faith throughout. It is the absence of protection for them that, regrettably, causes me to have to support the Lords amendment again today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) tabled what I thought were constructive amendments, which I was happy to sign. I hope—still; even at this late stage—that the Government will see that there is a basis for progress to be made. As things stand, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) noted, we have to continue to press the case on the Government. I hope that, if the House rejects the amendments—I hope it will vote for the Lords amendments and deal with the matter—it will give the Government yet a further chance to resolve this matter.
At the end of the day, we are not asking that the taxpayer pick up the burden. We are asking that the leaseholders should be relieved, certainly in the short term, of the pressures that fall upon them and that they are unable to deal with. The Government are in a position to fund the cash flow that leaseholders cannot  fund and which is driving them to desperate situations. It is absolutely right that they should then seek to recoup those funds from those who are responsible and who have been at fault. There is nothing in the Lords amendment or the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that would prevent that from happening. I urge the Government to think again and recognise that, although the core elements of the Bill are good, collaterally, it does real injustice to innocent leaseholders, such as many in my constituency and elsewhere. For heaven’s sake, can we not find a constructive way forward to achieve the objectives of the Bill and protect innocent leaseholders? Those things should not be mutually incompatible, but at the moment we have not yet found a solution.

Paul Blomfield: I actually think that the Prime Minister framed this debate well, because he told the House on 3 February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
Those were his words. No ifs, no buts—it was an unequivocal pledge. Clearly, the Government’s measures so far fall well short of fulfilling it. Today we have the opportunity to address that, because the Lords amendments make good on that failure.
I have spoken previously in the House about leaseholders in the Metis building, Wicker Riverside, Daisy Spring Works and elsewhere in my constituency who face a range of issues with ACM and other cladding, compartmentation, flammable materials wrongly used and other fire safety products. They are trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable, facing bills that will break them—some up to £50,000 each.
Let us remember that we are talking about young people who stretched their budgets to the limit to buy their first home; couples unable to move on when they have their first child; others who cannot take new jobs because they cannot sell; and older people who have sunk their life savings into their flat and have nowhere to turn. They are being put under unbearable pressure and unimaginable mental strain. People have told me they fear collecting their post in the morning because of the bills it might contain. It is simply unacceptable. Today we can end that misery.
Those who say that the costs should not fall on the public purse are right. The developers responsible should pay up, as well as those responsible for failings in the building regulation system. The only way that developers and others responsible will be held to account is if the Government own the problem, urgently undertake remediation and then use the full resources of the state to chase down those responsible. Leaseholders simply cannot do it on their own.
We have that responsibility because successive Governments oversaw a flawed system of building inspections, which signed off so many of these unsafe buildings. These leaseholders are victims of comprehensive regulatory failure. There is a grave injustice here that must be remedied, and the Government must face  up to it. Those responsible for the failings should be responsible for putting them right, without any costs falling on leaseholders, either now or in the future through loans schemes.
Many leaseholders have stretched their finances to the limit to buy their home. Some have already been bankrupted. Others are facing ruin. We have to put a stop to it today, so let us put aside other differences and do the right thing by accepting the Lords amendments.

Rosie Winterton: I apologise to those who did not get in, but I do need to bring the Minister in.

Christopher Pincher: I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. The House will know that we have a duty to implement clear and effective legislation to support fire and building safety reform. We have an obligation in this place to make good law. While I entirely accept that the motivations of all those who have contributed today are not to damage the Fire Safety Bill, I have to tell them that the practical consequence of passing the Lords amendments would be to do that, because they are ineffective and defective. Let me explain why, before moving on to some of the other points that Members have made.
The amendments would prevent any type of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, even if the cost was very minor or if the leaseholder was responsible for damage, and that is not a proportionate response. There is no framework in the Lord Bishop of St Albans’ amendment to distinguish between different works. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for minor costs, such as replacing a smoke alarm, and that if the leaseholder is responsible for breaking a smoke alarm, in all likelihood they should fix it. The amendment is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay or direct the costs, and that would result in remediation being delayed, even in the case of minor defects, if routes of cost recovery are unclear.

Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Pincher: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I have to conclude my remarks. Perhaps if I have a bit of time at the end, I will.
These orphan liabilities would leave leaseholders continuing to live in unsafe properties with no further clarity as to who will pay. It is important to ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected as much as possible and that remediation is not delayed unnecessarily in extended litigation such as we might find ourselves in. It is not the solution that leaseholders need or the one that the taxpayer deserves.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has also tabled an amendment. It desires to provide greater clarity than perhaps other amendments do, but it also shares some of the defects of the St Albans amendment. It applies to any form of remediation, including wear and tear, and there is no cost threshold on what works should not be considered. Moreover, the amendment also provides that the Home Secretary will essentially be acting in a quasi-judicial role to adjudicate whether appropriate parties should pay costs of remediation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will find herself apportioning liability for any building with two or more dwellings on a building-by-building basis for  any possible cost associated with the fire safety order. That would take years. Leaseholders may be unable to sell or move until their building has been considered. Without much more clarity on how these decisions are to be made, the Government themselves could be open to judicial review, slowing down important implementation of policy and diverting taxpayers’ money towards litigation once again. We believe that we should seek to keep these decisions on liability in the hands of the courts, not those of politicians.
However, there are points on which we agree. That is, for example, on the principle around forfeiture. It is a draconian measure that should be used only as a last resort. This matter should be considered as part of our wider programme on leasehold reform that we have already indicated. Adding it to the Fire Safety Bill purely for fire safety order costs will create a tangle of loopholes and potential for satellite litigation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset also talked about the apportionment of costs. He will know that the Government have announced a consultation on a tax measure on the development sector to ensure that the developers—those with the broadest shoulders—pay their way. We reckon that that will yield at least £2 billion over the period. Of course, we will want to keep that under review so that we can ensure that those who ought to pay do pay and that taxpayers and leaseholders are protected as far as they possibly can be. He also asked us to assure him that we will consider his own constituency case. I am very happy to commit, as my hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done, to look at that constituency matter to see what we can learn from the case study in North Somerset.
In conclusion, these amendments are defective, and I am afraid I have to ask the House to respectfully disagree with their lordships and reject their amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4J.

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 256.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 4J disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 4J;
‘ That Christopher Pincher, Tom Pursglove, Scott Mann and Chris Elmore be members of the Committee;
That Christopher Pincher be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Rosie Winterton: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will be observed that the Government’s majority without the Scots Nats was halved in the last vote.
I would not ask for guidance from the Chair in the Commons about procedure in the Lords, but were the Lords to send back another amendment different from the one we have been considering, but trying to take up the points raised in this Chamber, am I right in saying that the Government could table their own amendment tomorrow, which would absorb the points made in this House, so that leaseholders are not penalised in the way they would be if the Bill went through as it is at the moment?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Father of the House for that point of order. Obviously it will be a matter for the Lords and the business managers to say how it will proceed from here.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Schedule 1 - Excluded offences for the purposes of section 6

Leo Docherty: I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 1R but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Government manuscript amendments (d) and (e).
Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 5B.

Leo Docherty: I rise to propose Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 1S to 1U. I should once again like to thank Lord Robertson for his constructive contributions to debates on this issue.
It has always been the case that the measures in the Bill will not leave our service personnel at greater risk of investigation by the International Criminal Court. By adopting the amendments, we are happy to offer further reassurance and put that beyond any doubt. I should like to reassure hon. Members that service personnel and veterans will continue to receive the benefits of the additional protections provided by part 1 of the Bill in respect of historical alleged criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. Including war crimes in schedule 1 of the Bill will have little practical impact on the protection that the Bill affords our armed forces personnel. The Government are therefore delivering on our commitment to protect our service personnel and veterans from the threat of legal proceedings in connection with historical overseas operations many years after the events in question.
We have listened, and we believe that these proposed Government amendments in lieu will satisfy the House of Lords in respect of relevant offences, and they demonstrate our continued commitment to strengthening the rule of law and to maintaining our leading role in upholding the rules-based international system.

Edward Leigh: Can the Minister name any country in the world that, 50 years after the event, would prosecute two of its own soldiers for killing a terrorist?

Leo Docherty: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. He is, of course, referring to legacy cases in Northern Ireland. I am confident, as I stated at the Dispatch Box last week, that legislation is forthcoming to ensure that our Northern Ireland veterans are protected from any prosecutions in the future. I urge that the Government amendments in lieu be accepted this afternoon.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, but can he explain what he means by the expression “in the future”? There will be a lot of people listening and wondering, “When is it going to affect me?”

Leo Docherty: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I am confident that, in the near future, legislation will be brought before the House from the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that we see no more prosecutions of Op Banner veterans, and I know that he will share that expectation.
I turn to Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care. The Government continue to believe that it would not be practicable or desirable to define a legally binding standard of care in relation to the matters referred to in the amendment. As I said previously, the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans. Over the years, we have established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans, and we have come a long way from the early days of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our welfare provisions were clearly laid out in the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement of 13 April. We are aiming for a gold standard and are improving our provision all the time without the requirement for legislation.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I know that he is committed to this; I have no doubt whatsoever about that. In my constituency and across Northern Ireland, a number of young service personnel who have served well have taken their own life due to post-traumatic stress disorder. Can the Minister assure me that when it comes to legal, pastoral and mental health support, everything that is necessary is in the Bill?

Leo Docherty: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I can reassure him with confidence that we are aiming for a gold standard in welfare provision. It does not require legislation. It requires constant improvement and a deep interest across Government, and that is  what the Ministry of Defence is committed to delivering alongside the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
Additionally, we are deeply concerned about the potential unintended negative effects of Lords amendment 5B if it is included in the Bill. Notions of pastoral and moral duties are extremely difficult to adequately define, and there is a real risk that attempting to do so will lead to more, rather than less, litigation and greater uncertainty for our armed forces people. We are also concerned that, as investigations and allegations arise and often occur on operations, the amendment might have the unintended consequence of undermining our operational effectiveness.
The Government do agree with Lord Dannatt on the need to set out clearly the benefits of the Bill to the armed forces community. He has asked for a commitment that the Government will communicate the measures of the Bill down the chain of command. I am, of course, delighted to give that assurance now. We will ensure that all service personnel understand the positive effects of the Bill and the legal protection it affords them. We will explain how the measures in the Bill are beneficial to individual service personnel who have deployed or will deploy on overseas operations.
Part 1 of the Bill will reduce the number and length of criminal investigations, and our armed forces personnel should be reassured that the unique context of overseas operations will be taken into account when criminal allegations against them are being investigated. The longstop  measures in part 2 of the Bill mean that we should never again see the industrial scale of civil claims that we saw in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. These measures are delivering on our manifesto commitment and our solemn pledge to protect our armed forces personnel and our veterans and to bring to an end the shameful cycle of vexatious legal claims brought against our finest asset—our defence people. Together, both parts of the Bill will give greater certainty to service personnel that they will not have the shadow of legal proceedings hanging over them for decades after they return from doing their duty on overseas operations.
We will be clear, of course, that the Bill will not stop service personnel being held to the highest standards that we would expect from all our armed forces, and that they will still be subject to domestic and international law when they deploy on overseas operations. Similar, we will make it clear that the limitation longstops will also apply to claims by them that are connected with overseas operations, and emphasise that they should bring any civil claims connected with overseas operations within six years of either the event or their date of knowledge. The vast majority have historically already done so, but it is important that this message is understood so that, in future, an even greater percentage of service personnel bring their claims in a timely manner.
In summary, the Bill delivers for our armed forces and protects our people, but I do not believe that setting a standard for the duty of care in the Bill is necessary or desirable, so I urge the House this afternoon to disagree with Lords amendment 5B.

John Healey: Before turning to the amendments before us today, I want to place on record my thanks to all those who have worked so hard and so collaboratively on the Bill throughout its passage, although I have been dismayed at earlier stages when Ministers have tried to make the Bill a matter of party politics. I believed from the outset that Members on all sides in both Houses wanted the same thing from this legislation—that is, to protect British troops and British values.
The Lords have certainly approached the Bill in this constructive cross-party manner, and I want to thank in particular those on the Labour Lords Front Bench: Lords Tunnicliffe, Touhig and Falconer, and Lord Robertson for his tireless work on part 1 of the Bill, which the Minister has acknowledged. I also want to thank Lord Hope for his convincing arguments on the European convention on human rights, Lord Dannatt for his leadership of the duty of care amendment we are considering this afternoon, and Lords Stirrup and Boyce for their experience, their wisdom and their backing for all the Lords amendments that were sent to this House. I also want to thank the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Goldie, and indeed the new Minister himself for their similarly constructive approach.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about their lordships, but does he agree that if some of the amendments that were tabled in Committee had been adopted, the Lords would not have had to redo the work on the Bill? Is he as disappointed as I am that the Minister at the time would not take into consideration any amendments  in Committee?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is right. Last week when we debated the first set of Lords amendments, I described the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), as a “roadblock to reason” on this Bill. Unfortunately, that has meant that more work was done in the Lords, and that the deep flaws in the Bill have not all yet been fixed. So this is a Bill that in many ways fails to do what it set out to do; it fails to do what it says on the tin. Finally, before I move on to talk about the amendments—which I am sure you wish me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker—I want to make sure that I thank the Bill team in the Ministry of Defence and the Bill teams and Officers of both Houses for their advice, their professionalism and their hard work on the Bill.
We welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 1R, which excludes from the Bill’s five-year presumption against prosecution all war crimes covered by articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome statute, which of course set up the International Criminal Court and applies the Geneva conventions, which were very  much Britain’s brainchild under Attlee and then Churchill after the second world war.
The Government have rightly followed through today on the principle that Ministers conceded last week on torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, because not excluding the full range of crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court would damage Britain’s international standing, including that of our armed forces, and lay open our armed forces to the risk of being hauled before the ICC. The Government’s acceptance of that amendment and its consequentials, to give full effect to the Lords’ intent from last week, is welcome. We have worked hard for it, and I am sure that the move will be welcomed across the House.
On the argument that the Minister made for disagreeing to Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care, this legislation, as I said a moment ago, is still very far from doing what it says on the tin to protect British forces personnel serving overseas from vexatious litigation and repeat investigations. It still fails to incorporate a duty of care for forces personnel who are faced with allegations, investigations and litigation, and the Government’s amendments in lieu will knock out this important and valuable amendment that the Lords have sent back to us.
Led by Lord Dannatt, and still heavily backed by Cross-Bench and cross-party support, the Lords voted by another large majority of 69 yesterday to return amendment 5B to us. It is more practical and more flexible, and it is a more tightly focused duty of care. I have to say to the Minister that the Government’s arguments to defend their position become more flaky and more flimsy as we get deeper into ping-pong, and as they rely more on their colleagues following the Whips through the voting Lobby without thinking for themselves.
Let me take each of the arguments that the Minister this afternoon, and his colleague Baroness Goldie yesterday, made against this duty of care amendment. First, Ministers say that this comprehensive support is already in place and routinely offered, yet veterans faced with investigation or litigation consistently say that they are cut adrift by their chain of command and abandoned entirely by the  MOD, with no legal, pastoral or mental health support. Major Bob Campbell made that point so powerfully from his own dreadful experience in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, as did many others. The most senior figures in the House of Lords believe that this duty of care is required. I have to say to the Minister that talk of a “gold standard” simply highlights the gap between what Ministers say and what veterans experience.
Secondly, the Minister has said again today that the duty of care standard, if not carefully drafted, could end up being a blanket approach. He has argued that there could be difficulties in defining the duty, but it would be for the MOD itself to draw up and define that duty of care standard. That cannot be beyond the several thousand civil servants in MOD Main Building. The Lords amendment gives the principle a tight focus on those forces personnel or veterans who are subject to investigation and litigation.
Thirdly, the Minister said, as his colleague did yesterday, that this is somehow likely to lead to an increase in litigation. If that were the case, it would of course be litigation against the MOD, not individual service personnel, and the Bill is supposed to protect armed forces personnel, not the MOD.
Fourthly, the Minister said, as his colleague did yesterday, that the duty could have an impact on operations during conflict, and could have unintended consequences. I really feel that it is a stretch to imagine a duty of care, with impartial legal advice and pastoral support, interfering with operations or the chain of command. If Ministers really believe that to be the case, they need to spell out those concerns.
The former Chief of the General Staff, Lord Dannatt, who led the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and served in Bosnia and Kosovo, is satisfied with the Lords amendment and does not share those concerns. I urge Tory MPs who are ready to troop through the voting Lobby this afternoon with their Whips to think for themselves on this and heed the warning of Lord Dannatt, who yesterday said,
“when this new Bill passes into law it will singularly fail to provide the protection that serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces believe it should provide.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 2109.]
We are disappointed that the Government will not rethink this proposal today, but we are determined to pursue it further. I encourage the new Minister to look hard at it before we return to the Armed Forces Bill.
Finally, this version of the duty of care amendment gives greater emphasis to support during investigations. Although Lord Thomas did not press his amendment on investigations to a vote yesterday, I remind the Minister that the purpose of this Bill is to protect our forces personnel serving in conflicts overseas from vexatious legal claims and repeat investigations. This is a long-running problem. It has been a problem under successive Governments, but this Bill does not fix it because it is lopsided legislation that deals only with prosecutions and not also with investigations. Quite honestly, if this Bill had been on the statute book  after Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have made no difference to more than 99% of the 4,000-plus cases where our service personnel were subject to allegations and investigations.

Kevan Jones: May I also say to my right hon. Friend that it will not in the future either, because it will not, as the Minister said, stop vexatious claims coming forward, because they will have to be investigated? There is a huge hole in this Bill, which the former Minister refused to accept in Committee, about trying to case manage investigations, so people will still be investigated. There is nothing in this Bill to say that they will not be investigated, so it does not do what it says on the tin and it would be dishonest to people to suggest otherwise.

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is right. I have described it as the big gap in this legislation. It is a big flaw in the Bill. We may not succeed this time around, but we will certainly return to it in the Armed Forces Bill, which I will come on to. The proposals before us in this amendment are simple, flexible, tried and tested in civilian law, and backed by all the leading military and legal experts in the other place.
I urge the Minister this afternoon to confirm what he hinted at last week, and what his colleague, Baroness Goldie, said she would not stand in the way of yesterday. The Secretary of State made an offer to me in conversation last week to formally ask Sir Richard Henriques to examine this proposal as part of his current review so that it can be considered alongside other recommendations from that review for incorporation into the Armed Forces Bill. The Minister’s predecessor said at the very outset of this Bill’s proceedings in this House, on Second Reading back in November:
“The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]
Of course, they are not, but we will ensure that they are. I say to the Minister that I hope we will be able to work together constructively on that, in a way that proved so difficult with his predecessor.

Kevan Jones: But it was not for lack of trying. I moved three amendments in Committee, and not only were they fiercely resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but there was no explanation of how and when in future legislation anything around investigations would be addressed, even though my right hon. Friend is right that the former Minister had given a commitment that investigations would be addressed in the Armed Forces Bill.

John Healey: Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has worked as hard as anyone in this House on this Bill and I am really grateful to him for that. He has been part of what the Opposition, certainly, are now set to do, which is to forge a consensus on the changes needed to the Bill so that it better serves the interests of British troops, British justice and Britain’s standing in the world. I believe that we, as the official Opposition, and we as a House, have a duty to try to make this Bill fit for purpose as the new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. It falls short of that test at present. We will not let those matters rest.
This is a classic case of a Government who will win their legislation but have lost the arguments. When that is the case, the Government will find that those arguments come back again, not just from the Opposition but from  all parties, not just from this House but from both Houses, and not just from Parliament but from all the range of outside organisations that together have been the chorus of criticism about so much in this Bill that is still left undone but will be done in future.

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that the knife falls at 4.32 pm and we have nine speakers, plus the Minister to respond. That gives hardly any time, so can I implore those contributing either remotely or physically please to use self-discipline? With nobody specifically in mind, I call David Davis.

David Davis: Thank you for the hint, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will confine myself to issues around Lords amendment 1R in order to limit what I have to say.
Last week’s concessions from the Government on the matters relating to amendment 1R were long overdue. With their tabling of the amendments removing genocide, torture and crimes against humanity, some of the most egregious errors in the Bill were corrected, which is why I voted in favour of the Government amendment last week. However, as I warned on Wednesday, that amendment left one serious matter unresolved—war crimes are still subject to a presumption against prosecution. Thankfully, further representations from Lord Robertson and others have led the Government now to rectify this oversight with the amendment we are considering today. I welcome that further concession. In government, as I said last week, it is always difficult to change your mind once you set out on a specific course of action, but the Government are to be commended for doing just that in the case of this Bill. In particular, I again commend the new Minister for his extremely rational approach to this and using the time that ping-pong has given him to good effect.
The original drafting of the Bill created a situation whereby the UK’s standing on the international stage would have been threatened. Our reputation as an upholder of the rule of law would have been tarnished and we would have run the risk of potentially having our troops hauled before the International Criminal Court. That would have been a truly shameful outcome. The ICC is usually in the business of prosecuting tyrants and torturers, not the soldiers of law-abiding democracies, let alone one with the United Kingdom’s reputation. The concessions last week would still have left our soldiers open to charges of war crimes. To be clear, these are not theoretical concerns of myself or other Members either here or in the other place. When I asked the chief prosecutor of the ICC for her consideration of the Government’s concessions on this point, she said in her response to me last Friday that
“any gap between the scope of coverage in the excludable offences under the proposed legislation and conduct which might otherwise constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court would risk…rendering relevant cases concerning such conduct admissible before the ICC.”
In other words, the Bill in its state last week would have still left our soldiers open to prosecution.
Today’s amendment means that torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide will all now, quite rightly, be excluded from the presumption against prosecution contained in the Bill. That is to be welcomed. On that basis, I am entirely supportive of the Government  and they will get my vote today. However, I will just make a comment en passant relating to what the right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) said. The Ministry of Defence now needs to take the advice of people like former Judge Advocate General Blackett, and others, and improve its own investigation system to stop soldiers from going through the same problems again in future. The problem has always rested, in part, within the walls of the Ministry of Defence, so improvements to the investigation process must be made. Our troops need to be reassured that if they ever face allegations of wrongdoing they will be investigated fairly, rapidly, and without the threat of constant reinvestigation. Only then will our service personnel be properly protected from vexatious and damaging litigation, and only then will this Bill and its associated policy have properly achieved its aim.

Martin Docherty: May I first take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on their new position? It is always good to see Dochertys in very lofty positions, even ones that are lofty in the wrong direction.
The Bill was supposed to tackle vexatious claims, yet the evidence received, both written and in Committee, pointed to the problems arising from flawed investigations. Nothing in the Bill improves service justice or tackles repeated investigations. The Bill was an opportunity to overhaul the system, but that is an opportunity now lost. Unless the Government establish proper structures and processes for investigations, including independent investigators, personnel will remain vulnerable to repeated investigations and indeed investigations by the International Criminal Court.
Still, the Government have been forced into significant concessions in other areas of the Bill because of the work of Members in the other place. The Government agreed last week that genocide, crimes against humanity and torture would be excluded from legal safeguards in the Bill. The threat of a further possible defeat at the hands of peers has, I am glad to hear, forced the Government also to exclude war crimes from the presumption against prosecution. Although we on the SNP Benches recognise this change, it should not have taken until the last gasp of this Bill for the Government to make it.
In their refusal to listen to evidence presented in Committee and to the calls of Members of this House, the Government, at least from our perspective, have profoundly damaged the UK and Parliament’s reputation internationally. We also see that the final version of the Bill retains the six-year longstop on civil claims against the MOD, denying members of the armed forces justice in valid civil claims. Indeed, it will significantly disadvantage those who have served abroad. The House should be making it easier for personnel to make claims when the MOD has been negligent, but this legislation seems to be crafted especially to protect the MOD and not the personnel themselves.
Lords amendment 5B ensures care and support for personnel involved in investigations, and every Member of this place should be supporting it. The House knows from discussions with personnel that the structures currently in place are not working for those facing  prosecution, and we have seen that in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee, of which I am a member. Finally, if that support is already there and it is not working, we need to strengthen it through statutory requirements. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government are willing to do that.

Bob Stewart: The distinct purpose of the Bill is to provide legal protection to military personnel serving overseas on operations—that is what it is about. It is all about stopping vexatious prosecutions, often generated, for large sums, by unscrupulous lawyers. In short, lawfare, such as we saw a few years ago, should be a thing of the past, but is it totally gone? I wish to explain a little of the worries I have.
I am pleased that the Government have now decided to include war crimes alongside torture, crimes against humanity, genocide and sexual crimes, such as a rape, as being not subject to a statutory presumption against prosecution. That is good news, because, as others have said, it might stop our service personnel being dragged before the ICC in the future. So we must now prosecute war crimes like any other crime, but might I suggest a slight spanner in the works here?
I have seen such crimes in my time in Bosnia, in 1992-93—obviously, I should emphasise, they were not carried out by British soldiers. I have also given evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, where such crimes were tried—this is now done by the ICC. I gave evidence in trials where the guilty were sent to prison for between 15 and 45 years. I wonder exactly what crimes are not subject to a statute of limitation. What crimes creep through? As far as I can see, most of the definitions allow us to decide exactly what happens. I am quite worried that the Minister might not be able to identify a crime carried out that we could prosecute without a statute of limitation.
Sexual crimes can be prosecuted anyway under Navy, Army and Air Force Acts. Service personnel can never be ordered to carry out such acts by superior officers. Effectively, the Bill accepts and confirms crimes under the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 2003. The Bill states that unless there is compelling evidence, service personnel cannot be charged with crimes committed more than five years ago, unless of course they have taken part in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity or genocide, which are offences without a time limit. As I mentioned earlier, I am slightly worried about what is left. Of course I go along with what we have done, but I am slightly worried that many crimes can evade the provisions and that people could be done on these classifications.
On service personnel who have suffered some form of physical or mental injury, the limit is broadly six years after the event. In short, they must have started proceedings against, say, the Ministry of Defence within that period. However, the Bill allows for the possibility of someone bringing forward proceedings where, for example, they have PTSD but had not discovered it, even if they are affected 20 years later. In such as case, they will have six years from the point when they discover they are affected or when they are diagnosed to bring a claim against the MOD. I reckon that is fair enough. The MOD is certainly not trying to disadvantage its own.
I end by reminding everyone of a point the Minister made. The Government are still committed to bringing forward a Bill to protect veterans in Northern Ireland in  the same way as those who have served overseas. If they do not, our servicemen and servicewomen will have two levels of protection: those like me who served in Northern Ireland will have a lesser degree of protection than those who have served overseas. To that end, I have always believed and supported the suggestion by the Defence Committee, on which I served several years ago, that the way forward in Northern Ireland is for there to be a qualified statute of limitations unless compelling new evidence has been produced. I therefore hope that very soon the Government will bring forward legislation to stop possible unequal treatment of our service personnel.

Emma Lewell-Buck: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and respected Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).
It is welcome that the Government have eventually accepted that war crimes should be excluded from the Bill. However, that it took this long for them to understand the grave implications of their proposals remains very worrying. What remains of concern is the stubborn refusal to introduce a duty of care to our service personnel. I am still at a total loss as to why the Government would reject and oppose care standards for service personnel and veterans involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations.
I was not comforted by the Minister’s words last week—neither, indeed, was I just now—when he assured us that,
“The Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, for whom there already exists a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support”,
bearing in mind the testimonies from those in my own constituency and those who gave evidence to the Bill Committee of how inaccessible and ineffective that support can be. I was even less assured after reading the media comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who said that help is available, yet it is hard to understand it and
“hard to understand where it is”,
and that promoting where it is and how to get to it was simply not part of this Government’s agenda.
The Minister also claimed that the Lords amendment carries a risk of
“unintended consequences, including a possible increase in litigation, which would be contrary to the Bill’s objectives.”
As the noble Lord Dannatt said in the other place, that is simply an empty argument because, under the amendment, the Ministry of Defence has the opportunity to draw up its own statement of a duty of care standard and act within that. I reiterate my comments from last week—that to claim that the duty of care proposals would be better placed in the Armed Forces Bill is not acceptable. We are debating and voting today on this Bill; it is not right for MPs to accept gaps in legislation on the promise that it may or may not be rectified in future legislation.
The Bill’s objective is to offer more protection and support to service personnel and veterans, so how can an amendment that offers just that protection and support be, as the Minister said last week,
“contrary to the Bill’s objectives”?—[Official Report, 21 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 1058.]
I would really appreciate it if, in summing up, the Minister could expand on and clarify why the Government’s stubborn objection to this duty of care has remained. There still remains nothing in the Bill that will solve the problem of repeated investigations. Without Lords amendment 5B, there is nothing in the Bill that will afford our forces personnel and veterans a duty of care when they are undergoing such awful investigations.
I remain of the view that this Bill is a hurried and inadequate piece of legislation that has never matched up to the rhetoric surrounding it. No one is in disagreement that greater legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving overseas were needed, but the Government have drafted legislation that makes the problem worse, leaves our service personnel and veterans at a disadvantage and without crucial support, and fails on its promise to those who served in Northern Ireland.
Our service personnel and veterans deserve the very best for risking their all for us; I echo the pleas made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that, in today’s vote, Government Members show that they believe this too by joining us in the Lobby.

James Sunderland: I stated on Second Reading that this is a good Bill and my view remains exactly the same. As we know, the other place wanted torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity excluded from relevant offences. We disagreed initially, but amendments 1A to 1Q from the MOD, whereby breaches of the Geneva convention and genocide are excluded from the offences, are very welcome. This Government have sent the clear message that they stand against all breaches of human rights in conflict.
My stance throughout this whole process has been very clear. The supposition from some quarters that British troops are somehow predisposed to committing war crimes wantonly and that the UK has somehow given them a “get out of jail free” card is absurd. The MOD already has one of the most effective and robust service justice systems in the world. The presumption against prosecution also in no way affects the UK’s ability to conduct investigations and prosecutions into any crime, including war crimes; it is a high threshold, not a bar. However, as Baroness Goldie stated in  the other place only yesterday, there was significant concern that through exclusion of serious crimes, such as sexual offences, this Bill would run the risk of undermining the work that the Government have put in to push the UK as a force for good around the world. I agree. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, I concede that this House should absolutely agree to Lords amendment 1R.
Lord Dannatt’s revision to Lords amendment 5, Lords amendment 5B, is also worthy of consideration, but I want to point out at this juncture that service personnel are entitled to legal support at public expense when they face criminal allegations and civil claims. The Armed Forces Bill brings the armed forces covenant into statute, and there is unrivalled medical support, including mental health support, available to all personnel and veterans. I agree, again, with the Government’s continuing stance that the amendment is not necessary, and I will vote with the Government on all occasions today.

Jamie Stone: I shall try to be brief. Last week, I spoke about what I see as British values, which have been mentioned in the debate. I therefore welcome the concession on war crimes, because any erosion of how we and the rest of the world perceive our British values would be deeply damaging to this country’s reputation.
As others have said, I believe there is still work to be done on the duty of care, and I flag up its connection with mental health. When I talk to constituents who have served Queen and country bravely, there is a fear that they will be abandoned if they find themselves in the position of being accused. I hear what other Members have said about the legal help that they would be afforded, but there is still a fear out there.
It would be churlish of me not to say thank you to the new Minister. Last week I said I did not know him very well, but what I have seen during one week gives me much more confidence in him. His predecessor was referred to as a roadblock, but I think the thoughtful and conciliatory attitude shown by the new Minister, whose fingerprints I rather suspect are on the war crimes concession, is very useful indeed.
I want to talk about the process. The Bill we see today is a lot better than the one we looked at last November. The cross-party work in the other place is deeply significant. Many Tory peers have been instrumental in bringing forward amendments. In yet another place, known as the Scottish Parliament, I knew Baroness Goldie in another incarnation. I came to respect that good lady’s thoughtful and judicious approach to matters, so I am not surprised to see her playing the role she does in the other place. We belong to different parties, but I recognise quality where I see it.
We have a Bill that is better than it was. In my opinion and that of my party, the jury is out on the duty of care in mental health, but the way we have improved the Bill is instructive to all of us. There is possibly a message to Her Majesty’s Government here. The reputation of the UK Parliament depends on the quality of the legislation that is enacted. Where there is co-operation across the House and between both Houses to make the best legislation, that is ideal. I very much hope that the Government will look at the process by which we came to be where we are today, learn from it and apply that technique to other legislation as it comes before us. I reiterate my thanks to the new Minister.

Nigel Evans: I will call the Minister at 4.27 pm, and the debate will finish at 4.32 pm.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that this was a good Bill—no, it is not. It is a bad Bill, and it is an unnecessary Bill. All of this could have been done within the Armed Forces Bill that is going through Parliament, but the Government chose, for their own reasons, to put forward this Bill. It does not get to the central point of the issue, which is around investigations. They are completely absent from this Bill and currently absent from the Armed Forces Bill. They were resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in this Bill and in the Armed Forces Bill. It galls me that yesterday he was standing outside a court in Northern Ireland, trumpeting  the fact that he was on the side of trying to stop people being investigated, when he had been in a position to do something about it. I think of him as being a bit like an actor in a play who has been sat in the audience watching, rather than taking part.
Without investigation, the Bill is flawed. I have written to the Minister: he needs to ensure that investigations are put in the Armed Forces Bill, because without that, despite the protections that have been claimed today, servicemen and women will be watching our proceedings, thinking that they have more protection than they have. They will still be investigated if allegations are made. There is an opportunity now, with the Armed Forces Bill, to remedy that.
Part 2 of this Bill should simply have been scrapped. I am sorry, but the idea that we should all have Limitation Act rights and yet members of our armed forces should not—that we should take those away from them—is just not good enough. A Bill that is supposed to give things to our armed forces has been taking things away from them. Part 2 will be challenged in court; only the lawyers will benefit from it.
I welcome the change on war crimes because, like many across the House, I was concerned about our international reputation. I fully support Lord Dannatt’s amendment; I believe we should support anything that helps servicemen and women who are going through such a process.
The Bill claimed to do a lot but does very little. It is disappointing. It could have been vastly improved, or just ignored altogether and incorporated into the Armed Forces Bill. There is an opportunity to put right what is not in this Bill when the Armed Forces Bill passes through the House. I know that the Minister is open to discussions about that, but I urge him to ensure that that happens, because without that, people will still be investigated; they will still go through the agony that this Bill was intended to stop. We all sympathised with that intention. It clearly will not be achieved in the Bill’s present form.

Stephen Timms: I also warmly welcome the further concession that the Minister has announced. The Bill will now exclude all the offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. That has now fixed the worst of the problems that many have been anxious about during debates on the Bill.
It would be helpful to understand why it has proved so hard for the Government to realise how awful what they were proposing was. No Minister wants to give armed forces carte blanche to commit torture, genocide and war crimes, and yet it has required the most extraordinary struggle to stop the Government doing exactly that. The noble Lord Robertson—I welcome the Minister’s tribute to him—introducing his amendment in the other place, said:
“Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]
Yet they ploughed on until yesterday. Perhaps it was indeed the change of Minister that averted disaster, and with others I congratulate him on his achievement in a  short time, but if he can, in winding up, shed some further light on what on earth has been going on, the House would be grateful.
I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on duty of care and investigations. I hope that we will come back to them soon if the duty of care amendment is lost this afternoon. I warmly welcome the progress on the Bill in the past few days and would be grateful for any light the Minister can shed on what has been going on.

Nigel Evans: I call Jim Shannon —Please resume your seat no later than 4.27 pm.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I echo the comments by others in relation to those who served in Northern Ireland and the protection that we need. The Minister has responded on that very positively, but we also need a timescale for that to happen.
In the short time that I have, I want to refer to the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel who are involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. I am aware of this because I am aware of a young fellow in my constituency who served overseas and fought with many demons in his own life. I am not blaming the MOD for it, but I ask the question: could we do more? Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care to service personnel could give them the level of care that is earned from putting the uniform on. Subsection (6) of the new clause inserted by the amendment states:
“In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.”
When it comes to mental health and the effects on people’s families and lives, our moral obligation should and must be to go the extra mile. That is why I support the premise of the amendment. It reminds us of our moral obligation, which is as important as our legal obligation, to those who serve in uniform.
A five-year programme of study has been carried out in tandem with Queen’s University. The results show—and I want to have this on the record, in Hansard—that more than a third of all military veterans in Northern Ireland are likely to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Those are the stats, according to this study. More than 1,300 veterans responded to the survey, with 36% reporting signs of PTSD and the same number reporting problems with alcohol.
We have many charities in Northern Ireland that help out. I think of Beyond the Battlefield, in particular, which reaches out to those whom other charities perhaps miss; that is not to take away from the importance of other charities. Some of those cases are incredibly complex, and there are lots of issues for not just the individuals but family members. We need to address the duty of care, both morally and legally.
This is not helped by the fact that those who served in Northern Ireland continue to see no movement. They seek protection, which is very important to have in place for those who served in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has given a commitment, but could he tell us where discussions are with the Secretary of State?
I usually say that I will not rehearse previous speeches, but this, I believe, bears repeating. Veterans who served in uniform and operated legally with honour, great courage and great fortitude deserve to be treated with equality. I say to the Government: please do the right thing and bring legislation on this issue forward in the Queen’s Speech in May. Let us show that our moral and legal obligation extends to those who have served on every occasion and from every region of this great nation of ours, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful for all Members’ contributions. I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his constructive tone. I am happy to confirm that I will communicate to Justice Henriques the concerns that he has raised. Of course, it is an independent review, but we would be happy for Justice Henriques to consider those concerns within the scope of his review.
We heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I look forward to receiving the right hon. Gentleman’s letter, and I will give it due consideration and respond in due course. We also heard contributions from the hon. Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), as well as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); I thank him for bringing his personal experience into the debate.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Returning to the question of Northern Ireland veterans, I would like to be clear. I mentioned earlier that Her Majesty’s Government intend to bring forward legislation in relation to Northern Ireland. The House will understand that I cannot comment on any ongoing legal matters, but I will give the reassurance that we are absolutely committed to delivering on our commitments to veterans of Op Banner as soon as possible.
In closing, I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to the Bill team, who have been first class throughout, and in particular to the Bill manager, Richard Hartell. It is to their great credit that we have brought the Bill to this point. If the House accepts the Government amendments in lieu and rejects Lords amendment 5B, the Bill will allow us to deliver on our manifesto commitment—our solemn pledge—to protect our armed forces personnel and our veterans and bring an end to the shameful cycle of vexatious legal claims brought against our finest asset: our people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 1R but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Government manuscript amendments (d) and (e) made.

After Clause 12 - Duty of care to service personnel

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5B.

The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 267.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 5B disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 5B;
That Leo Docherty, Alan Mak, David T. C. Davies, John Healey and Carol Monaghan be members of the Committee;
That Leo Docherty be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Nigel Evans: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Could those leaving do so carefully, without touching the Dispatch Boxes, as they have been sanitised during the Division? Will Ministers coming in do likewise?

Electricity

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I beg to move,
That the draft Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.
The House may be aware that in October 2020 the Government consulted on the proposed one-year extension of the warm home discount scheme. The changes proposed were broadly welcomed, and these regulations will implement them.
The Government are committed to alleviating fuel poverty. In the sustainable warmth strategy, published in February, the Government restated our commitment to our statutory target to upgrade as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practical to at least an energy efficiency rating of band C by the end of 2030. The best long-term solution is to improve the energy efficiency of a home, thereby bringing down the cost of heating it, but that takes time and some homes, especially those that are harder to treat, may be left behind.

Alan Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way so early. Are there any interim targets for upgrading homes to energy performance certificate band C? What is meant by practical, cost-effective and reasonable costs? Can those terms be defined, or are they left for others to judge?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: If the hon. Gentlemen waits, we may be able to provide him with some more information.
As well as reaching millions of people each year, energy bill rebates are simple to deliver and consumer friendly. The warm home discount is therefore a key policy in our policy mix to help alleviate fuel poverty. Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households each year by reducing their energy bills at the time of year when that is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £140 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills, and more than 1.2 million low-income and vulnerable households receive the rebate following an application to their participating energy supplier.
Building on the success of the scheme, the energy White Paper committed to extending the scheme to at least 2025-26, expanding the overall spending envelope to £475 million a year from 2022 and consulting on reforms to improve the fuel poverty targeting weight. We intend to consult on the future scheme later this year.
Reforming the scheme has long lead times, however, and this winter I want to prioritise the safe and timely delivery of rebates to ensure that those in need continue to receive this vital support, particularly given the continuing impacts of covid-19. It is therefore important that minimal changes are made to the scheme for next winter. This will mean that the scheme will be worth £354 million and that eligible pensioners on pension credit guarantee credit, as well as eligible vulnerable households supported through the broader group, can continue to receive £140 off their energy bills.
We will also not be amending the current energy supplier participation thresholds, as any change now, with such limited time for implementation, could cause significant and potentially damaging administrative and financial challenges for smaller energy suppliers. We intend to review that for the future reform.
We are, however, making some improvements to the industry initiatives part of the scheme. That includes lifting the restriction on providing financial assistance under industry initiatives to those eligible for a rebate, which will create greater flexibility and help more people during the covid-19 pandemic. We will keep the current overall cap of £6 million for the energy debt write-off mechanism, but we will also introduce a new individual cap of £2,000, enabling support to reach a greater number of households in need.
We will additionally be making changes so that proposed industry initiatives and specified activities will ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that advice on the benefits of smart meters is provided to households benefiting from the industry initiative or specified activity. During the covid-19 pandemic, smart meters have been invaluable for energy consumers, allowing prepayment customers to top up remotely from home, while also enabling suppliers to offer timely support to vulnerable customers. We are also introducing greater consumer protections for boiler and central heating system installations and repairs carried out under the scheme.
Finally, we are proposing to make some further operational changes this year. That includes introducing a requirement for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to inform the Secretary of State if an electricity supplier that becomes a supplier of last resort notifies the authority of its intention to meet all or part of a failed supplier’s non-core spending obligation. This additionally includes making changes to clarify the full extent of the small suppliers scheme obligations when it passes the relevant threshold and becomes newly subject to the non-core spending obligation.
To conclude, the regulations extend the warm home discount until March 2022, which will help more than 2.2 million households this coming winter. The regulations will provide vital support for low-income and vulnerable customers to keep warm this winter in advance of consulting on wider scheme reform from 2022. I commend the regulations to the House.

Alan Whitehead: I welcome the statutory instrument this afternoon to extend the warm home discount for another year. Indeed, what is there not to like about extending the warm home discount for a further year at least? It has been a very successful scheme. It is now coming up to its 11th year, and, as the Minister has mentioned, it provides £140 guaranteed for those in fuel poverty and in vulnerable circumstances to help with their fuel bills.
I have a sense that the SI is a little Augustinian. It is a little, in the saying of St Augustine, “Oh Lord make me good, but not now.” [Interruption.] Sorry, “not yet”. I should look at my “Dictionary of Great Quotations” a little more assiduously.
The Minister has mentioned the suggestions in the energy White Paper about the future of the warm home discount and the proposals not only to continue it  beyond next year but to at least 2026. However, that is not addressed in this particular piece of legislation today. I assume that is because, as the Minister said, consultations need to be undertaken in order to refashion the longer-term warm home discount into a slightly different form. Indeed, in the energy White Paper, there is mention of what might be in store for us as far as that refashioning is concerned. In particular, it includes an increase in the envelope so that there is a substantially larger amount of money in the pot for extending the scope of the warm home discount; an increase in the size of the rebate, with a suggestion that it goes to £150, rather than £140; and a consultation on a reform of the targeting of the warm home discount so that it faces rather more towards fuel poverty than is presently the case.
All those things appeared in the White Paper, albeit in a fairly sketchy form, but more than some of them could have been done earlier. They need not have been put off to next year. I assume that a further piece of secondary legislation will be introduced to extend the scheme beyond one year. By the way, it is important that we have some certainty about the longer-term arrangements for the warm home discount so that we are not constantly hopping from one year to the next; we must have a longer-term view of the future of the scheme.
Not only could some of the things signalled in the White Paper, but not detailed or actioned, have been brought forward and put in this year’s extension, but there are further problems with the warm home discount scheme—I think the Minister is well aware of them—that have not been addressed in this year’s suggested extension. It is certainly true that there are a number of welcome things in this SI that relate, for example, to the way that the supplier of last resort arrangements are dealt with. It provides more certainty that a failed supplier’s warm home discount obligations do not disappear with the failure of the supplier and are carried over to obligations going to the supplier that is taking over as the supplier as last resort.
That welcome enhancement of the scheme does not resolve one of the fundamental problems relating to obligated suppliers. The Minister mentioned that she does not wish to change the threshold for next year’s WHD arrangements, but I am sure she is aware that the obligation level leads to the continuing problem of what happens to someone’s entitlement to the warm home discount if they switch during the year from a supplier that is above the threshold to one that is below it. Although I accept that the threshold has been reduced, there is still an issue of the loss, potential or actual, of that entitlement to an obligation on switching. The customer, of course, does not know which supplier  has 150,000 customers or fewer than 150,000 customers when they do that.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. I understand that the scheme the Minister is proposing is important for people who need to improve their homes. Does the shadow Minister believe that the funding is in place to ensure that the finance is there for all those who wish to have their homes brought up to a certain standard?

Alan Whitehead: Well, the finances are not there, in general terms. That is one thing mentioned again in the White Paper as an ambition, and the Minister has herself mentioned the ambition of essentially resolving fuel poverty by uprating the energy efficiency of homes up to 2035. Indeed, money has been committed both, I think, in the Conservative election manifesto and in the White Paper itself for that purpose. But actually we have not seen any of that yet, and I doubt we are going to see any of that for quite a long time to come.
The question of this continuing problem of entitlement to warm home discounts if a switch takes place is possibly exacerbated by the new provisions that have been put into the SI as we see it today. That is, of course, that it is not necessarily the case that a company that takes over as a supplier of last resort, when another company has failed, is always going to be a company with more than 150,000 customers. Under the new arrangements, the obligations could continue but then be dissolved by the fact that the new company taken on as a supplier of last resort is below that threshold level. I would suggest that that leads to a rather complicated outcome as far as entitlements are concerned.
I am particularly disappointed that no attempt was made to resolve this issue in this year’s extension, rather than batting it down the road to the extension for the future. I would hope the Minister can assure us this afternoon that she will certainly be very diligent in attempting to secure a solution to this particular problem when the new arrangements come in place up to 2026. I wonder whether the Minister could not just this year, simply by reducing the threshold to a de minimis level, have resolved the issue essentially for this year.
I am pleased to hear the Minister mention the continuation of the industry initiatives element of the warm home discount. She will know that that has led to a great deal of very solid and good assistance being given to people who are in receipt of the warm home discount for a range of issues relating to their pension and other tax credit entitlements, and perhaps their receipt of top-up vouchers and various other things. I take it from the Minister’s assurances that she has given us this afternoon that the industry initiatives will be fully retained in this year’s extension, and indeed that the industry initiatives arrangements will be rolled over into the warm home discount after 2026, as it goes forward.
The final thing I would ask the Minister to comment briefly on is the ambition in the White Paper proposals for the extension of the warm home discount to concentrate to a greater extent on fuel poverty as such in the delivery of the warm home discount. She will appreciate that a number of the people who receive warm home discounts will not qualify, as it were, particularly under the revised definition of fuel poverty that the Government have now indicated is to be the future benchmark for fuel poverty. Nevertheless, those people will be in great  need of the warm home discount for the future. I would be grateful if the Minister could briefly inform us whether it is her intention to ensure that people who need the warm home discount but do not necessarily fit into the Government’s new definition of fuel poverty will actually be protected as the arrangements are put in place for ensuring a greater emphasis on fuel poverty for the future.

Rob Roberts: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important motion today. I do so not only as the Member for Delyn but as the chair of the all-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency. The motion that we are debating is one of the biggest steps that we can take towards tackling fuel poverty in our country and, as seems to be the case throughout the House, I wholeheartedly support it.
Fuel poverty is one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, so I am proud to see that this Government are committed to doing all they can to make sure that every household is able to afford to properly heat their home. While it is positive that fuel poverty rates have fallen in recent years—around 12% of households in Wales are now classed as fuel-poor—there is still much more to be done. But with definitions and methodologies being different in all four constituent parts of the UK, it is impossible to compare which measures have been most successful in driving down those rates. One of the things that my APPG will look into is whether we can get a UK-wide agreement on a single definition of fuel poverty, so that we can get a real understanding of the depth of the issue and the disparities between different parts of the country.
Although I am pleased to see the UK Government’s ambitious plans to tackle fuel poverty, whether that is through financial support or improving the energy efficiency of homes, as a Welsh MP, I find myself once again a little disappointed by the lack of action from the Labour Government in Wales. The Welsh Government have proved once again to be all talk and no action, with Welsh Labour setting targets to eradicate fuel poverty in Wales by 2010, then again by 2012, and then again by 2018. Sadly, they have failed to meet this target time and again, not even coming close. It is the most vulnerable households in Delyn and across Wales who will ultimately pay the price for those failings. However, with covid causing further strain on household finances, I am glad to see the UK Government go beyond setting arbitrary targets and look instead to provide real support and solutions for those who need them most. Schemes such as the warm home discount, which are available to households in Wales and throughout Britain, are more important than ever and are a lifeline for many over the winter months.

Alan Brown: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if someone is fuel-poor, the reality is that they probably live in a household where they are poor anyway. They are living in poverty and one of the causes of poverty is the reduction in welfare and benefits, which is clearly reserved to Westminster. Does he acknowledge that that is a problem? Also, has his APPG looked at investment in energy efficiency in Scotland, where it is four times per capita that of Westminster?

Rob Roberts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which kind of highlights one of the issues that I mentioned, which is the disparity in the definitions of what fuel poverty actually means in each of the four constituent parts. I mentioned that 12% of households in Wales are classed as fuel-poor. Although I did not note it down, I believe that the percentage in Scotland was 24%, so I am not entirely sure that trumpeting the successes of the Scottish Government would be a good thing in that case.
Quite simply, with over 2.2 million low-income and vulnerable households in Britain benefiting from the scheme each year, it is the correct and best decision to extend it for a further 12 months, but increasing the overall spending target of the scheme to £354 million will see even more households able to access the support that they need. Following proper consultation, I also welcome the changes that the Government are bringing in, which will broaden the reach of the scheme and give energy companies more flexibility, making it easier for households to participate in the scheme.
From increasing consumer protection during boiler and central heating installation and repairs to removing the restriction on energy suppliers that prevents them from providing emergency support on top of the scheme, all these small changes will make a huge difference to those who benefit from it. Although there is room to improve the scheme, I am enthused to hear that the Government have considered the importance of the industry initiatives element when looking at the future of the scheme. But it is vital that we pass these regulations now; otherwise, millions of households who are struggling due to the pandemic would be put in an even more challenging situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), the Opposition Front Bencher, on seeking more long-term clarity, rather than continued short-term measures.
I thank everyone who has put in to speak today on this important matter and welcome them all to attend our next APPG meeting towards the end of May. We will continue to work with the Government and discuss ways to improve domestic energy efficiency, to achieve affordable warmth for all homes and to eventually and finally eradicate fuel poverty. Heating a home should never be a luxury; it is always a necessity. Today’s motion and ones like it recognise the need among the most vulnerable households in our communities and ensure that they can live comfortably, secure in the knowledge that they are able to get assistance in properly heating their homes. I hope that the measures are supported on both sides of the House.

Alan Brown: Obviously, I welcome any moves to alleviate fuel poverty. The Scottish Government have provided a legislative consent motion for the draft regulations, so clearly I will not vote against them. However, the reality is that, although we welcome the measures and, as the shadow Minister said, the warm homes discount scheme has been a success, in many ways, it is a typical Tory trick, because it uses energy companies themselves and other bill payers to provide assistance to the most vulnerable. The reality is that we need much more direct UK Government investment, particularly in energy efficiency.
Recent schemes that were supposed to help with energy efficiency include the failed green deal scheme. The UK Government still have not provided compensation for those who were mis-sold green deal installations. We have just seen the failure of the green homes grant scheme. It is ridiculous that the UK Government pulled the money because the scheme was deemed to be too slow at helping people. Long-term funding is required to allow businesses to invest and to prepare for a pipeline of work, rather than the boom-and-bust cycles that we have at the moment.
Fuel poverty is a scourge of society, with something like 3.5 million homes considered to be in fuel poverty in 2018. It is known that the problem has increased in the past year due to the pandemic and people losing employment; yet the figures in paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum show only an inflationary increase to the funding available through the scheme. I therefore ask the Minister how many additional households she thinks require further support to alleviate fuel poverty, and how many will miss out because of that standing-still approach to the funding pot.
The Minister touched on the fact that imposing a cap of £2,000 for debt assistance will allow more people to be helped, so how many more people will be helped and how many people were previously helped at debt levels over £2,000 who will still have debt, even if they get assistance through the scheme? What is her response to the Committee on Fuel Poverty, which says that only 15% of the UK Government spend on fuel poverty actually reaches the fuel-poor? Will she listen to recommendations from industry, the third sector and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee about investing directly in energy-efficiency measures and following the lead of the Scottish Government in terms of per capita investment, which, as I have said, is four times that of Westminster.
Will the Government consider that the Scottish Government are treating energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project, and when will we see proper joined-up policies looking at the long term? Will the Minister consider the call from the Environmental Audit Committee to reduce VAT on the refurbishment of energy efficiency installations in existing homes?
Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum states that the Energy White Paper commits
“to all homes to reach EPC C standard by 2035”,
so as per my earlier intervention I am hoping that the Minister can clarify what “practical, cost-effective and affordable” means, and whether the Government will set that out. Paragraph 7.7 details that the funding envelope will rise to £475 million in 2022, from £354 million this year. Obviously, additional support for the fuel-poor is welcome, but on what basis has the additional £121 million been identified? How can a figure be derived when the same paragraph—7.7—states that there needs to be a consultation on scheme reform to better target fuel poverty? Surely good governance is about identifying a need and then identifying strategies and solutions to meet that need, rather than coming up with a figure and trying to work backwards to find a solution that meets the figure.
What will that £475 million look like for the average bill payer? Between the warm homes discount, contracts for difference, smart meters and other initiatives, what does it all mean for bill payers such as the previously fabled “just about managing”? Many people are struggling and the reality is that the more that gets lumped on energy bills, the more difficult it becomes for them to afford their heating.
Is the increased funding and consultation an admission that the current scheme is not hitting the right number of people, or the correct fuel-poor households? Paragraph 7.6 outlines that
“installations or repairs of boilers and central heating systems”
are required to be done through companies under the TrustMark scheme. I give a cautious welcome to that as well, but I would like to double check how reliable the scheme is, and what BEIS’s governance protocols are on it. I have already highlighted the green deal fiasco, where accreditation was far too easy for unscrupulous companies. I also have constituents who have been ripped off by installers of biomass boilers. Again, those installers were Government-approved contractors. I would just like to double check that the TrustMark scheme is fit for purpose and that the Minister makes sure that it has suitable overarching governance.
To return to fuel poverty and its effects, which is a reminder of why we need more action, roughly 3.5 million homes are fuel-poor. National Energy Action estimates that cold homes contribute to more than 30,000 winter deaths. Fuel poverty has been estimated to cost the NHS across the UK £2.5 billion, with ailments and conditions worsened by cold or damp houses. This is against the backdrop of the need to move away from fossil fuel heating.
I am on the BEIS Committee and we are undertaking a heat decarbonisation inquiry at the moment. We have heard that the overall install cost of a heat pump system is roughly £15,000. What are the Government’s plans to go from 20,000 installs per year to 600,000 per annum in 2028? How will that be paid for? It cannot just be put on the bills of the average bill payer yet again. Some direct Government investment is going to be required.
I implore the Minister to again look at some examples in Scotland. The provision of an independent advice body, Home Energy Scotland, has been welcomed by third sector organisations across the UK. They would like to see Westminster replicate such an independent body to provide free and impartial advice on modifications to the property, how to switch and to help people to make the correct decisions on how to manage their heating systems.
The Scottish Government also run an award-winning national fuel poverty scheme, Warmer Homes Scotland. Households assisted through that are expected to save an average of £325 in their bills. That is quite significant compared with the £140 warm homes discount rebate that the SI provides.
The SNP has pledged to replace the unreliable £25 cold winter payment with an annual £50 winter heating payment, which will cover 400,000 low-income households. Will the Minister look at that in the round, from a Westminster perspective? The SNP has also pledged that, if re-elected, it will introduce a £20 per week child payment, which is clearly going to help families, which then helps to alleviate fuel poverty.
I conclude with a cautious welcome, but really, more direct Government intervention is required if we are going to eliminate fuel poverty.

Sir David Amess: Having spoken in the Chamber 21 years ago about the need to reduce fuel poverty, when I got my name on the statute book for introducing the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000—I hope that does not sound too puffed-up, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am delighted with the Government’s improvements to that legislation, which was the first piece of legislation obliging the Government to design and implement a strategy to limit fuel poverty in this country.
According to the most recent annual fuel poverty statistics published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 13.4% of households were in fuel poverty in England in 2019, compared with 15% in 2018. Although progress has been made, which I welcome, our work needs to continue. We need to take every measure to raise public awareness about the various help options available, both from the Government and from energy providers.
I very much support an extension to the warm homes discount scheme, as it has been described as a winter lifeline by many of my constituents. At a time of financial uncertainty, many residents in Southend have relied on Government support to pay their bills during the coronavirus pandemic. If the warm homes discount scheme were not to be extended, many of the most vulnerable households would be forced to live in unsafe conditions, which would severely affect their mental and physical health, with the potential for long-lasting irreversible health effects. Fuel poverty is a real concern for many households in the United Kingdom as individuals live from day to day relying on every pay cheque to buy food, care for their children and pay their utility bills. This scheme should be extended for at least a year, but preferably at least until 2026 as set out by the Government in their energy White Paper.
I am sure that colleagues will have received emails similar to the ones I have received from worried constituents. In Southend, I have constituents who have been made redundant because of the pandemic and have been forced to claim universal credit but are still struggling to pay their bills because they have children and grandchildren who rely on them financially. These individuals need urgent support. The Government’s policy on social housing needs to be developed further. I hope the Government aim to require social landlords to bring their properties up to at least EPC band C, as social housing is Government-funded and so should lead the way in terms of energy efficiency.
I welcome the extension of the green homes grant, but further support should be given to individuals living in older houses that need remodelling as we transition to net zero by 2050. I hope that the Government will continue to work closely with energy suppliers to make utility bills more affordable for those struggling financially.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank hon. Members for their valuable and insightful contributions to this debate. I will do my best to answer their questions but, as ever, if I fail to do so, my team will make sure that we get back to everyone in due course.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) highlighted some of the issues. To reassure him, the reforms will indeed target those most likely to be in fuel poverty as well as protecting the most vulnerable current recipients. He is right that consultation is required, but we felt that the pandemic pressures last year made that inappropriate and incredibly difficult, which is why we are rolling it forward for this year and will bring these consultations into action as quickly as possible. We absolutely recognise the value of industry initiatives, which is why we have expanded their potential use. The reform consultations later this year will include industry initiatives. I hope that reassures him on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) raised the really important and genuine challenge that we should try to find a UK-wide definition of fuel poverty. I take on board those things. I have regular meetings with the devolved Administrations on a number of issues, and I will put that on the agenda, because—he is not wrong—trying to think holistically is a really important challenge for this Government. I do not guarantee that I will find an answer immediately, but I absolutely take up the challenge of extending those discussions.
In response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), we do have, as he asked, interim milestones in the fuel poverty strategy of fuel-poor households reaching an energy efficiency rating of band E by 2020 and band D by 2025. Achieving that is indeed a great challenge. However, investment in the local authority schemes element of the green homes grant scheme has increased by £300 million. We have already allocated £500 million across English regions, reaching 50,000 homes, and that will continue to roll out. This is absolutely targeted at reaching the most vulnerable households. Local authorities are making really good use of the fund and getting on with making these really important efficiency adaptations for those of our constituents who are most in need of it.
Turning to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)—his early leadership on this should absolutely be celebrated. I have learned in my short time in this place that if you do not celebrate your achievements, no one else might do it, so I absolutely support his willingness to share.  I did not know about that, so it is lovely to discover it. I very much hope that we will continue to reassure his constituents of our commitment, through both this SI and the forthcoming reforms, to really hone this and try to improve its reach even further. He will no doubt be waiting with bated breath for the heat and buildings strategy, which we will be publishing very soon—I would like to say imminently, but it is always hard to know just how clear one can be. Let us go with that. I hope that that will give him a clearer picture of the work we want to do to make sure we crack the efficiency challenge, which accounts for nearly 20% of our carbon emissions, so we have to find ways. It is complicated, with 50 million homes that are built in different ways. It is a huge challenge that we all have to undertake.
In the short term, we have heard from colleagues across the House about the importance of extending the warm home discount scheme that we are here to put through today for a further year. The financial situation that covid-19 has posed for households across the country in the past year has been challenging to say the least, but particularly so for low-income and vulnerable households.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister be able to clarify how the £475 million figure was derived? That is an increase of £121 million, which is an increase of almost a third. I am just curious about the workings that said £354 million this year is okay, but we need a massive increase the year after.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will make sure we give him the detail of the figures in due course.
I am really pleased that there is agreement across the House that low-income and vulnerable households should continue to receive the valuable support provided by the  warm home discount at a time when they most need it. Over the 10 years of the discount scheme so far, more than £3 billion in direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households.

Alan Whitehead: I thank the Minister very much for giving way. I detect that she may be coming towards the end of her comments. I wonder if she might pause to reflect briefly on the whole question of thresholds and obligations, and how they might work out over the next year, particularly with the new scheme as it comes forward after her proposed consultation period.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I fear the hon. Gentleman may have to wait for our consultation to consider that, but I absolutely hear his point and reassure him that we will be looking at that in the round. I think we will have capacity. It is so important that we get to grips now, at the start of this really big challenge on buildings efficiency, and think in the round to help those most vulnerable households, and ensure we are as effective as we can be with taxpayers’ money and as impactful as we can be for each and every one of those homes regardless of their situation. I hope he will be reassured, as the consultation gets going, that we will look at that across the board.
The regulations will enable the continuation of support for a further winter. One million of our poorest pensioners and a further 1.2 million households in or at risk of fuel poverty will continue to receive £140 off their bills. I encourage all Members to continue to use the messaging—I am happy to share the detail with them—to reach out to their constituents who might be eligible for pension credit but have not applied for it. We want to ensure that people apply for it. The numbers are lower than we think they should be, so I encourage all colleagues to ensure that all their constituents who are eligible receive it.
As we outlined in the energy White Paper, beyond this extension we are committed to extending the scheme from 2022 until at least 2025-26, and to expanding the spending envelope to £475 million to enable us to reach a further 750,000 households, while consulting on reform of the scheme to better target fuel poverty spending. We intend to consult on the scheme beyond 2022 later this year. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Nigel Evans: We will now suspend for three minutes in order to clean the Dispatch Boxes. Please leave carefully.
Sitting suspended.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move,
That the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 429), dated 30 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.
It is a great pleasure to be here and to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This instrument makes urgent and necessary amendments to EU exit legislation concerning border controls to extend the exemption period for the import requirements for plants, animals and their products coming into Great Britain from the EU. Now that we have left the EU, we are bringing in measures to apply the same risk-based biosecurity controls regime to the EU as that which we have for the rest of the world. In our exit regulations, we set out a transitional period for the introduction of controls on EU sanitary and phytosanitary imports. The reason for changing the timescale in the statutory instrument today is simply that we recognise the effects of the pandemic and the effects it continues to have on the business community. Phasing the introduction of controls in a sensible way prioritises flow at the border and is designed to minimise disruption to international trade. The original start date in the regulations was 1 April 2021. That date was announced last June. When the regulations were drafted in the autumn of 2020, we were simply not clear about how disruptive the pandemic would continue to be to all of us and to our business communities, both here and in the EU, over the winter.
On 11 March 2021, the XO Cabinet Committee agreed that we should extend the introduction of checks because of the pandemic. The change to the timetable will enable businesses to familiarise themselves with the new SPS requirements and to bring in new IT systems. It will allow them to do further work on the necessary infrastructure and processes at border control posts. We will in due course introduce a further instrument to reset the later phases of import controls and get the right dates there, too.
As a whole, these regulations will ensure that we can continue to deliver robust, effective controls and checks on all food, animal and plant imports. The devolved Administrations have given their consent for these regulations to apply to the whole of Great Britain, and we also remain fully committed to WTO rules and, of course, to our international trade obligations. This instrument ensures that legislation to maintain our UK biosecurity will continue to function in GB, taking into account the full and unforeseen impacts of dealing nationally and internationally with the pandemic. With this legislation, we will continue to deliver an effective import system that guarantees high standards of food and animal safety while ensuring frictionless trading and movements. I commend these regulations to the House.

Daniel Zeichner: Well, here we are again, perhaps unsurprisingly, with yet more statutory instruments needed to correct the entirely foreseeable problems created by the Prime Minister’s rushed job  over Christmas, the consequences of which I fear will be with us for some time. Let me start by saying that we will not be opposing this SI. It has, after all, been in effect for nearly a month, and we acknowledge that it had to be done, because quite simply, the processes that needed to be in place, whether physical or information technology, were not there. The Government simply were not ready, so now they have come back asking for more time —well, not really asking, but telling—even though they promised in early discussions that they would be ready.
I am sure the Minister remembers, in introducing SI 2020/1631 on 20 January, saying:
“ From July this year, we will have controls in place for all imports of EU SPS goods.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 January 2021; c. 4.]
Today, the Government tell us that we will not have such controls, in most situations, until next year. They cannot say that they were not warned; I had previously warned them about this. The following week, in a debate on another of our sequence of SIs, 2020/1661, I said:
“My fear is that there will be a lot of bridging in the months and years ahead”.—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 5.]
And here we are, exactly as predicted. Going back to that first discussion on 20 January, I recall pressing the Minister quite directly on the potential for delay, and particularly on the likelihood of border control posts being ready. I am sure she remembers. She told us:
“The Animal and Plant Health Agency tells us that the building is progressing and it is confident that they can be ready by July.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 January 2021; c. 8.]
I entirely understand the problems of the coronavirus epidemic, but this was at a time when I think we could have been aware of the potential problems.
It is therefore reasonable for us to be slightly sceptical about the current promises from DEFRA in response to a query from the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which I am sure we are all very grateful. The Committee was told by the Department that it expected the
“infrastructure to be ready as required to deliver each of the revised phases of increased SPS checks in October 2021, January 2022, and March 2022.”
Well, let us hope so, but I have to say that the saga of the row over the border control posts in Portsmouth bodes ill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) for his campaigning to get a fair deal for Portsmouth on this issue.
Sadly, it is not just the physical buildings that are late. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also rightly queried the readiness of the IT systems. It was told by DEFRA that the import of products, animals, food and feed system—IPAFFS—is working for imports and that the Department
“continues the development of the new exports IT system (formal name to be confirmed in due course).”
As a former IT person, that did not fill me with confidence. I suspect that staff trying to deal with these things may have a few suggestions for names for the aforesaid system.
Even more alarmingly, the Department cites working with a small group of used agricultural farm machinery exporters to develop the system. That is an important sector, but I am not sure that it is entirely typical. The Minister may have seen the recent story in Farmers  Weekly about an East Sussex machinery dealer who has stopped shipping abroad because of what he describes as the “lunacy” involved in obtaining the plant health certificates required since the UK left the European Union. Let us hope that the team working on the computer system and their colleagues can make things work more smoothly for him and others. Will both the physical border control posts and the necessary IT systems be ready this time, or will we be back here again having yet another discussion on further extensions?
Although at first the SI looks deceptively simple, making a few date changes, there is more to it than that. A much longer transition period has consequences, and as businesses change their practices to adapt, there may be real costs and risks. Can the Minister tell me what analysis has been made of the potential for smugglers and fraudsters to take advantage of the lack of checks for an even longer period? Frankly, it is an open door. It has even been suggested to me that goods coming into the EU bound for the UK are being waved through because it is no longer of consequence to the EU. If we are not checking either, who knows what is actually coming in? What safeguards are there?
While extending the time kicks the problem further down the road, what progress is the Minister making on encouraging the EU to be ready in time, to ensure that the imports we need will be able to flow smoothly? We are well aware of the problems that UK producers have encountered with exports into the EU—the extra costs for export health certificates, the pressure on availability of vets and the problems with groupage. It is highly likely that the same problems will occur the other way, with European suppliers perhaps having less pressure to get things in place, being able to turn to other European markets. How is the Minister using the extra time secured by this SI to ensure that the problems we may have been facing in a few weeks are not just put off for a few more months?
Given that we may still face problems with supply, can the Minister explain why the Food Resilience Industry Forum has been shut down? A member of the forum quoted recently in The Grocer says:
“Government has kicked the can down the road with various grace periods which will come to an end, and at that point there will be a greater need than ever for the industry to come together with Defra. It’s short-sighted of the government to be cutting these meetings short.”
They are spot on. That is the consequence of this statutory instrument. Can the Minister explain why this decision was taken and what the Government have got against working with the food sector to keep food supplies secure?
The SI changes some dates, but there are wider consequences. After difficulties at the border for British food exporters, with meat left rotting in lorries and the fishing industry thrown into chaos, the Government have now been forced to delay import checks on goods coming in from the EU to allow businesses and port authorities more time to prepare. The Government have left themselves with no alternative but to continue to allow check-free imports for many more months, but it did not have to be this way.
Instead of sticking their head in the sand, the Government could have worked with industry to get ready. They could have focused on practical action to support businesses—measures such as recruiting and  training the 50,000-plus customs agents we knew were needed to help with checks. Instead of delivering a limited deal at the last possible minute, they could have rolled their sleeves up and gained more for our country around the negotiating table. Due to the Government’s last-minute scramble to extend the deadline on import checks, this legislation had to be made so hastily that it has been left incomplete. As I think the Minister confirmed, yet more SIs will inevitably be needed to implement fully the planned timetable for import checks.
Labour has a very different vision for a post-Brexit Britain. We want businesses to thrive and for the gaps in the deal that are piling up paperwork and red tape to be properly addressed. We want an end to these stopgaps and real engagement with our European neighbours, to ensure that our complex and interrelated food systems can operate effectively and efficiently and not be undermined by Government incompetence, which risks disadvantaging UK producers.

Natalie Elphicke: Representing Dover as I do, I am delighted that we left the European Union at the end of last year, and that we have a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. That new relationship has brought with it an opportunity for us to make progress on issues that matter to us on which we have been held back by the EU, including animal welfare and food standards, to which I know the Minister is personally very committed. I welcome the Government’s commitment to banning live animal exports for fattening and slaughter. It is a disgusting practice that has been driven from Dover. I look forward to the legislation later this year, so that it can never return.
Except for the Christmas shenanigans by the French, the post-Brexit traffic plans have operated well. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and the Secretary of State for Transport for their hard work to keep Dover clear. However, four months after leaving the EU and six months after it was announced, the planned new border facility for Dover at the White Cliffs site is still waiting for the go-ahead. The site is designated to support the new DEFRA checking regime for animals, food and plant health, of which today’s regulations form an important part.
Last year, after extensive consideration of all available local sites, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirmed that the White Cliffs site was the only viable solution. The site has been six months in development since it was chosen and will bring millions of pounds of local investment, hundreds of jobs, a local employment strategy and so much more besides, but it will also take time to build.
The other local border control site is at Ashford, and it was not delivered on time. It is also close to road-bearing capacity—what it alone can support from the tens of thousands of trucks that pass through the border. Will the Minister take steps to support more urgent progress on the White Cliffs site following the purdah period for the current local elections? The White Cliffs site needs to be confirmed and started promptly so that it is ready to carry out the Department’s new inspection regime.
In addition to delays on the border sites, there have been significant delays in other post-Brexit implementation, including the arrangements for physical border control changes required as part of the Le Touquet juxtaposed controls in the port of Dover itself. Order at the border is vital for trade and prosperity, security and biosecurity. Strong borders make for good trading neighbours. It is therefore important that the timetables and action for strong and effective border controls do not slip further.
Lessons from France, which is already undertaking animal checks, show that they are more complicated in practice than was originally anticipated. I am aware that channel operators have been supporting the roll-out of these new requirements—for example, with language and other support. The UK responded fantastically in standing up multilingual facilities at short notice to assist with border preparations for transition day. These are the sorts of practical facilities that we need in place very shortly to support the changes for checking animals, foods and plants.
In addition to border controls, there are legal frameworks that need completion—for example, around border health control responsibilities. Dover District Council is the competent authority for the purposes of border health checks for both Eurotunnel and the port of Dover, yet it and nearby Ashford Borough Council are awaiting the legal framework to underpin the split of responsibilities between them for the new border control arrangements. Although the authorities work collaboratively and effectively together, it is an unsatisfactory position. Will the Minister’s Department look into this as a matter of urgency?
From time to time, there is disruption at the port. It can be caused by national security or terrorism-related issues, strikes, weather or, more recently, unilateral border closure or other activity by the French. In recent weeks, we have seen the standing down of the emergency traffic framework at Manston and the Operation Brock moveable barrier. However, there is no new framework for permanent additional lorry parks or alternative emergency provision for this next stage post transition.
We have seen at first hand the devastation to the fish and farming industries when problems occur at the border, with fish and seafood rotting in traffic queues and concerns for animal welfare, as well as for drivers.
The port of Dover is the busiest and most successful port of its type in the country. In an ordinary year, the port of Dover deals with £122 billion-worth of trade, about a fifth of the whole of the UK trade in goods, transiting 4.5 million vehicles and 11 million passengers. Daily, that is up to 10,000 freight vehicles and up to 90,000 passengers.
The importance of the short straits route is unquestionable, as is the need to get the border facilities for such a busy and vital route for our nation up and running swiftly. That is why I urge the Minister to ensure that the additional border facilities needed to manage the biosecurity trade and enhanced animal welfare provision at the White Cliffs site are confirmed and delivered at pace, together with effective road management schemes that keep Dover clear and keep animals, plants and food moving freely through the channel ports.

Deidre Brock: Here we are again, coming up to five years since that referendum in which England decided to take us  out of the EU, and still those behind that hare-brained scheme cannot settle on what needs to be done. There has been a veritable catalogue of failures along the way, passing by the truly awful performances in negotiations, the collapse of exporting industries in the early part of this year—teething problems, the Minister said—and the truly appalling way in which EU citizens have been treated by this Tory Government.
So here we are once again spending time on regulations to facilitate Brexit. How long have we spent having to discuss, adjust, finesse and rehash regulations for what was supposed to be the easiest trade deal in history? Today, we are kicking the import regulations down the road a little and I am sure that we will be back later to sort something else out and something else after that.
The SNP will not oppose these regulations today; they are necessary to keep the food on supermarket shelves here, because the Government failed to plan for Brexit. It is almost as if they did not understand what was coming, because the provisions for running a sensible import system are as lacking as this Government’s provisions for running a sensible export system. I have no doubt that Brexit will continue to harm businesses the length and breadth of the UK: small exporters are being crushed; farmers are feeling the pressure; and fisher folk are watching their communities being placed under huge strain. In the meantime, UK Ministers will be trumpeting the great achievement of signing trade deals with countries in various parts of the world—trade deals that will have no measurable impact on GDP or the economy here.
Scotland will soon be out of this Union and we will leave behind those who would cause self-damage for the sake of some forlorn idea of sovereign superiority, and I have to say that I am impatient to see that day.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as it always is to speak in the Chamber whenever the occasion arises. I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate so far. I spoke to the Minister beforehand, so I think that she has an idea of where I am coming from. Hopefully, she will be able to give me some idea about what we can do.
The explanatory notes say:
“The regulations are made in exercise of the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively and other deficiencies (in particular under section 8(2)(d)) arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) is in her place. She is our spokesperson on Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs issues, so she will know only too well what I am about to say. The legislation has created chaos for the movement of animals from the UK to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to the UK. The Minister can be under no illusion as to the questions that I will raise today. Why is this extension needed at all? Why have the discussions not enabled things to run smoothly, as promised? Most pertinently, why has Northern Ireland been—I use this word deliberately—abandoned yet again? To use a term that we use many times in this House, this SI will not cut the mustard with those in Northern Ireland who are unable to purchase dog food, to bring  their dog to the UK mainland for a staycation and to be and feel part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Over the past months, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and I have been contacted by literally hundreds of constituents who travel—some weekly, some monthly—to dog shows and events both on the UK mainland and in Northern Ireland. They were okay doing it before 31 December 2020, but they were unable to do it in the same way on 1 January 2021. The cost for each journey has basically meant that show-dog owners have had their leisure and, for some, their jobs changed forever. The cost to attend a show or event across the water has sometimes added £200 to the cost of a journey. Many, although not all, the people involved are of a pensionable age and the cost was horrendous for them. It basically meant that they were not able to do it. It has changed their leisure activities forever.
I am not sure whether the Minister knows about this incredible case. Back in February time, four ponies were coming over from the mainland but were detained in custody at the port for five weeks, while my constituents in Ballygowan were unable to get their ponies for their children. It really was quite incredible.

Carla Lockhart: My hon. Friend is making the valid point that it is the Northern Ireland protocol that is causing these difficulties. Does he agree that the Government need to realise that the protocol needs to go so that such ludicrous situations and the distress caused to the animals and owners can be avoided?

Jim Shannon: I certainly do; indeed, I wish to make that very point in the conclusion of my contribution. How ludicrous was it? There were four ponies for two ladies in Ballygowan in my constituency of Strangford, but they found that the presents for their children—the ponies—could not be delivered not only before the birthday but for five weeks afterwards. Just last weekend, those four ponies made the great escape and managed to get out of EU custody and make it all the way to Ballygowan. That underlines clearly the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol that my hon. Friend referred to.
The regulations do not do what they purport to do—they do not address the withdrawal issue—so I ask again that instead of this SI we trigger article 16 and secure trade for the entire UK. The time is more than past and words and action have to mean something. We should trigger the article and secure trade beyond July, December or, indeed, whatever date. We in Northern Ireland need to be treated the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister has always been very helpful when we have asked her to do anything; I hope she has the answer. There is no pressure on her whatsoever.

Victoria Prentis: I thank all those who have taken part in the debate.
Last June, we announced a timetable for the introduction of controls on imports from the EU into Great Britain. The introduction was phased to ensure that businesses would have time to prepare. Hindsight is a wonderful thing: I for one could certainly not have predicted, last  June, the full effects of the pandemic. In fact, I am sure I am not in a position to do so today. It is important to recognise the scale and significance of simultaneous challenges: new controls and the pandemic’s extended economic and personal disruption. We have listened to the concerns of businesses, which have worked hard to be ready as soon as possible but still need more time to prepare. I will not apologise for making sensible and business-friendly decisions. We will continue to keep the House fully informed as we go, but we live in extremely unusual times and it is important that we adapt to them appropriately.
As I outlined in my opening speech, this instrument is a critical component in our ongoing legislative process to ensure a robust biosecurity imports regime now that the transition period has ended. It delivers the first stage of the Government’s assessment of our need for a pragmatic process to continue to phase in controls on imports in a manner and to a timescale that can reasonably be met by importers and others in the trading sector.
There are no biosecurity risks from this delay. Current EU biosecurity standards are essentially the same as our own, and where that is not the case—for example, with certain plants—we have already delivered more robust controls that remain in place. We will continue to enforce full customs procedures for controlled goods such as tobacco and alcohol, and we will still impose controls on traders we deem to be high risk. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that we continue to intercept illegal movements using intelligence-led operations. If there is a difference, it is that we can be more targeted in our approach, because we are now able to focus specifically on risks to GB, rather than the EU as a whole.
We continue to provide support to help businesses get ready, both here and in the EU. On the fifth point raised by the hon. Gentleman, as we move out of lockdown, we are looking for more suitable forums to engage with industry, which we do on a regular, day in, day out basis. I spent a very useful hour at lunchtime chairing a discussion with the Food and Drink Federation, and there are many such contacts between DEFRA officials and business all the time.
We ran an extensive communications campaign, provided one-to-one support to some of the largest traders, hosted webinars for thousands of small businesses, and provided £84 million directly to expand the customs intermediary market. DEFRA has put in place a movement assistance scheme to support and assist traders moving plants and products, and making agri-food movements, from GB to NI since 1 January. The aim of that is to increase understanding and preparedness by providing a helpline that traders can use to seek guidance on moving goods, as well as providing financial support by reimbursing some certification costs associated with those movements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) made her points very powerfully. It was useful to have direct and real experience from the port of Dover reflected in our debate. I listened with interest to what she said about live exports, and I very much look forward to hearing news about that in the very short term. The Government are determined to legislate in that space.
There has been a review led by the Cabinet Office of the inland facility at White Cliffs, and I understand that the decision will go to the XO Cabinet Committee—the EU Exit Operations Committee—very shortly. I understand that my hon. Friend has had useful discussions with colleagues today and has been able to make her points powerfully to them. Until then, no decision will be taken, but I reassure her that she will be kept fully informed throughout the decision-making process.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always speaks passionately on farming and animal-related matters, that the responsibility for appointing the appropriate vets is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but we continue to work very closely with the devolved Administrations. As we work to get ready for January 2022, we will work directly with the ports where we have residual concerns about readiness. We will always ensure that any response that we come up with is one that can be brought into operation effectively. I would also like to reassure all those who mentioned this that we continue to work very closely with the EU to resolve outstanding matters, and that process will in the end, I hope, lead to fewer rather than more checks as we move forward with this new regime.
We have had a constructive and useful debate today, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Local Authority Enforcement Powers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 455), dated 9 April 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 April, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Health and Personal Social Services

That the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 365), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 March, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris)

The House divided: Ayes 431, Noes 89.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Petition - Dog attacks

Feryal Clark: Many of my constituents have been in touch concerning dog-on-dog attacks, and more than 150,000 people have signed the petition launched by my constituent, Emma Gambrill. I therefore present this petition on behalf of my constituent Emma, and note that this petition goes alongside her online campaign.
The petition states:
The petition of Emma Gambrill,
Declares that current legislation in the form of the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not account for dog-on-dog attacks where the dogs behave dangerously and are clearly out of control of irresponsible owners; further that this means that owners of dangerous dogs do not face robust action when their dogs attack other dogs; further that this problem was recently horribly highlighted in the case of Enfield North constituent Emma Gambrill’s dog, where her beautiful border collie, Blue, was attacked and mauled to death by two Cane Corso dogs that escaped from their garden, and where the owners who were present in their garden and were witness to the event were unable to control their dogs; and further that attacks such as this leave owners and families distraught and traumatised.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to set out whether this problem could be addressed by making dog-on-dog attacks a criminal offence, and to ensure that irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs face more robust action.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002661]

Alcohol Products: Labelling

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Dan Carden: I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister, whose reply I look forward to. Earlier this month, the details of the upcoming Government consultation on alcohol labelling—part of the obesity strategy—were leaked to the press. It is a long-overdue consultation and a welcome positive step that should lead to consumers being able to make more informed choices about their own health and wellbeing, but thanks to yet another hostile Government leak, the consultation was roundly attacked and misrepresented by tabloids and industry representatives. It sparked the usual outraged backlash against the nannying state and red tape, when that is simply not the case. I thought I would attempt to put the record straight.
To avoid confusion or misrepresentation, I whole-heartedly support our hospitality industry, and I understand the uphill battle it faces and the devastation that lockdowns and restrictions have caused. There is excitement and anticipation across the country about getting out, socialising, having a drink, seeing live music and enjoying life. We have all missed spending time with family and friends, whether that is relaxing and unwinding or going out and partying.
When we consider the role of alcohol in our society, we see that there is a balance to be struck. As with many things in life, there is the good and there is the bad, because we cannot escape the very real harm alcohol inflicts. The evidence, which I will come to, speaks for itself. Tackling alcohol harm is not about punishing drinkers or landlords, or taking the fun out of socialising. However, we have a responsibility—the Government have a responsibility—to hold the alcohol industry to account, and to ensure its fair and proper regulation.
Alcohol harm is rising, and it has been for many years, however we want to count it. Alcohol is now linked to 80 deaths a day in the UK, many of them of the young, while alcohol-specific deaths are at their highest rates since records began, and the treatment and funding for alcohol addiction are in absolute crisis, yet there appears to be no sense of urgency from Government. Alcohol is responsible for more years of working life lost than the 10 most frequent cancers combined. Before covid, alcohol took up 37% of ambulance time and a quarter of A&E time. For the police, it is even higher, with more than half of police time spent on alcohol-related incidents. All of this comes at a high financial cost, too. Alcohol harm is estimated to cost the UK taxpayer upwards of £27 billion each year.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House. It is a massive issue in his constituency, and very much one in mine as well. Does he not agree that alcohol-specific deaths are at an all-time high owing to a perfect storm? With coronavirus, isolation and lockdown, as well as the fact that very few people use standard pub measures at home, that there are supermarket deals on bottles of alcohol and people do not have to drive to work the  next day, it is imperative that we take steps to remind people of the number of units per bottle, make it clear that the glass of wine they are accustomed to at home is not the same as their local pub one, and make people aware of the need to reduce their intake.

Dan Carden: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and he is absolutely right.
We know that those in the most deprived communities are disproportionately affected. Despite drinking less on average, they are up to 60% more likely to die from alcohol than more affluent groups. In Liverpool—just one city—there are more than 14,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions every year, and 535 new cases of alcohol-related cancer as well. Alcohol harm and addiction are destroying lives, livelihoods, communities and families.
To return to the matter of today’s debate—alcohol labelling—I would like to ask those listening to remember the last time they looked at a bottle of orange juice. They may remember a number in red detailing the sugar content, a number for how many calories are in the drink, and a whole table with further information on nutritional content. Now picture a bottle of alcohol—wine perhaps. Do they remember seeing any such information about the ingredients, calories or nutritional values? Was there any information about the impact of alcohol on health, or any guidelines for consumption? If I can make a guess, the answer is most likely to be no, or maybe “on some bottles”. That is because none of this information is legally required on alcohol labels. Alcohol products are a conspicuous outlier among consumables. They are exempt from other food and drink labelling requirements, and the only information that is legally required is the volume of the liquid, its strength in ABV—alcohol by volume—and whether any of the 14 most common allergens are present.
In July 2020, the Government unveiled the new obesity strategy. On the subject of labelling, the Health Secretary said
“it’s only fair that you are given the right information about the food you’re eating to help people to make good decisions.”
He is absolutely right, and what he says is as true for alcoholic drinks as it is for anything else. It is surely bizarre that if we buy a bottle of juice, we get a range of calorie, ingredient and nutritional information, yet if we buy a juice and vodka ready-to-drink product, we will usually not get any of the same information. Similarly, alcohol-free beer and wine must display calorie and nutritional information, yet alcoholic beer and wine does not have to.
Covid-19 has reminded us all of the need to take seriously the impact of diet and lifestyle on our physical and mental health. As we know that alcohol damages health and causes harm, it is inexplicable that alcohol products face less regulation than fruit juices and fizzy drinks, so the Government’s consultation is timely and important.
I want to press the Minister to go further with the consultation than calories, nutritional information and ingredients; it must consider health information as well. The majority of the public agree and want to know what is in their drinks. Opinion polling conducted for the Alcohol Health Alliance shows that 74% of people  want ingredients on alcohol labels, 62% want nutritional information, including calorie content, and 70% want health warnings.
There is a strong case for displaying calorie information on alcohol labels. For those who drink, alcohol accounts for nearly 10% of their daily calorie intake. Around 3.4 million adults consume an additional day’s worth of calories each week, yet 80% of the public are unaware of the calorie content of the most common alcoholic drinks.
Alcohol harm is also poorly understood by drinkers. Only one in five people know the drinking guidelines, and only one in 10 can identify cancer as a health consequence of alcohol. We have warnings on cigarettes that tobacco can cause cancer, so why is similar information missing from alcohol?
I would like to quote one person with lived experience, who described the lack of health information to me like this:
“I knew little of how many recommended units per week, I knew nothing about the nutritional value, I could tell you how many calories were in a Mars Bar but not the glass of Merlot I was drinking. I knew nothing about the long-term health implications. If I buy a pack of cigarettes I am told they are highly addictive and I am told with every pack what health implication there could be. They are now behind a shutter in the shop – but alcohol? Nothing. I near lost my life to alcohol and the lack of information and regulation makes no sense to me”.
Alcohol labels are an effective tool to change that situation. A study in Canada showed that consumers exposed to health warnings on labels were three times more likely to be aware of the drinking guidelines and were also more likely to know about the link between alcohol and cancer.
A number of alcohol products voluntarily incorporate unit alcohol content per container, a pregnancy logo or message and active signposting to drinkaware.co.uk. I am grateful to the producers who contacted me ahead of this debate to share updated labels that now include calorie and nutritional information. One of the UK’s biggest pub chains has already taken that step and is providing calorie labelling for all alcoholic drinks on their menus. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming, in answer to my written question, that alcohol sold in licensed venues will also be part of the consultation.
If someone pops into their local supermarket and takes a wander round the booze aisle, it is abundantly clear that there are huge inconsistencies in alcohol packaging. That hit-and-miss approach is just not good enough. It is time to put it right and standardise the approach, as we have done with food labelling. Even on the products that did carry chief medical officer guidelines and nutritional information, there are varying degrees of clarity and visibility.
In their report “Drinking in the dark: How alcohol labelling fails consumers”, Alcohol Change UK and the Alcohol Health Alliance recommend that:
“The UK Government and devolved administrations must give a new or existing independent agency appropriate powers to…enforce what appears on alcohol labels, working in the interests of public health and consumer rights and free from influence and interference from corporate interests.”
I support that recommendation and hope that the Minister will consider it in the consultation, when it gets under way.
Sir Ian Gilmore, a leading figure in Liverpool’s fight against alcohol harm and chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said:
“Alcohol labelling in this country is…not fit for purpose if we wish to build a healthier society. The public must be granted the power to make informed decisions about their health by having access to prominent health warnings and information on ingredients, nutrition and alcohol content at the point of purchase. The industry’s reluctance to include this information on their products suggests profits are being put ahead of people’s health.”
Ahead of this debate, I received a letter and information from the Portman Group, the alcohol industry-funded social responsibility body and regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and promotion in the UK, and I am grateful for that. The Portman Group supports the consultation and its intention to provide consumers with more information on calories, the chief medical officer’s lower-risk guidance and drink-driving. It said that
“we believe this can be done most effectively on a voluntary basis”.
It is encouraging to hear some industry support for the consultation and I look forward to further discussions with it, but with alcohol-specific deaths at their highest on record, it is surely time for a proper review of how the industry is regulated and held to account.
The regulation of alcohol marketing in the UK is fragmented and largely self-regulating. Under the current set-up, the Advertising Standards Authority, funded by the advertising industry, Ofcom and the Portman Group, funded by the alcohol industry, all play a role in regulating marketing, from TV advertising to sponsorship deals to packaging. That is surely ripe for review, to consider how a new model and a new alcohol industry regulator could be made more accountable to the public and be fully independent of the alcohol industry.
I hope that the Minister will use her consultation as an opportunity to mandate wider health information on labels, too. This should, as a minimum, include the CMO’s guidelines, pregnancy warnings, drink-drive warnings and cancer warnings, so that we can make informed personal health choices and collectively seek to reduce alcohol harm.
I accept that alcohol labelling is only one small part of seeking to reduce alcohol harm across society. Any progress on improving labelling should be part of a broader strategy: a national, Government alcohol strategy. The last alcohol strategy was formulated in 2012, and, since then, harms have continued to rise. Over the last decade, we have learnt a lot more about the wider health impacts of alcohol, such as the link between alcohol and cancer. The World Health Organisation is clear that policies on the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol are the most effective—policies that have also proved effective in reducing smoking.
What can really be said of attempts to reduce the increasing and worsening harms caused by alcohol misuse? Why is it that evidence-based research and policies are being ignored in this way? The Government’s addiction strategy is under way—it was promised in 2020, but we are waiting for it—and we also await the second part of the Dame Carol Black review of drugs. These are very welcome, but now is surely the time for a full-scale review of reducing alcohol harm across society. A focused alcohol strategy would allow a much broader and fuller understanding of the extent of alcohol harm and the measures needed to reduce it.
As it stands today, the UK has the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths on record. Drug and alcohol addiction services have been pushed outside the NHS into cash-strapped local authorities, decimated by funding cuts and fragmented. There are fewer addiction psychiatrists in training than ever. Alcohol is now 74% cheaper than it was in 1987, and in England there are over 300,000 children currently living with at least one adult who drinks at a high-risk level.
This current trajectory cannot continue and the urgent need for a national alcohol strategy cannot be overstated. In their approach to obesity, the Government have shown a willingness to take bold action to protect the public’s health. The same boldness is now required to tackle alcohol harm. The consultation on the labelling of alcohol products is the first step towards improving transparency and accountability across the alcohol industry, and ensuring an evidence-based approach to reducing alcohol harms. I implore the Minister to get it under way, and I look forward to her response.

Jo Churchill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate and for the measured way in which he has approached this issue. He set out how we want to move forward, how alcohol has a broader cost—a cost to lives, to people’s health and to society—and how, fundamentally, this is about education; it is about helping people to make informed choices and make the right choice. For that, I thank him.
While the debate focuses on the labelling of alcohol products, I want to start by making a few points on alcohol consumption and misuse, which it is extremely important to address. While the majority of people drink and do so responsibly—I am sure the whole nation will be cheering at the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take the fun out of us all enjoying a responsible drink and getting together with friends and family—we know that there are people who drink at harmful levels, with that alcohol misuse leading to significant harms in not only their lives but the lives of those around them. It has large impacts on society that have a cost to health, to productivity and to quality of life.
Excessive consumption is the biggest risk factor to which early mortality, ill health and disability are attributable among 15 to 49-year-olds in the UK—those are young people’s lives—and is considered to be the third largest lifestyle risk for preventable disease after smoking and obesity. Alcohol harms are not experienced equally across all groups. Those with a lower socioeconomic status show the greatest susceptibility to alcohol harms and have a much higher likelihood of death or suffering a disease relating to their alcohol use, be it cancer, liver disease or a plethora of other things.
In recent years, we have seen an overall decrease in the number of people drinking. However, a review undertaken by Public Health England shows that during the pandemic, we have seen an increase in those drinking at dependent and higher-risk levels. While numbers may have gone down at the more moderate end, we have seen an increase of more than 16% in alcohol-related deaths for the first three quarters of 2020 compared with 2019. During that period we were largely limited to off-sales, because places where we might normally enjoy a social drink were closed.
We know that most people who drink alcohol do so responsibly and enjoy doing it on social occasions, but the covid pandemic has shone a spotlight on the impact of general poor health on our ability to fight off the virus. That is why we need to be aware of the risks of excessive drinking and how much heavier the impact is on those who have risks and challenges in that part of their life. It has underlined the need to take action, which was the thread running through the hon. Gentleman’s speech. We are improving the public health response and addressing a number of challenges, including obesity, smoking and drug misuse, and we will continue to monitor the impact of alcohol during the pandemic and as we come out of it, considering further action in the forthcoming addiction strategy.
Drug and alcohol treatment providers have continued to support and treat people through the pandemic, but there have been challenges. There have been some brighter sparks. I have spoken to people who have delivered group sessions, and it has been easier at times to connect and communicate, but for others, the journey during the pandemic has been a lot more disconnected. At this point in the debate, I would like to encourage, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would, anybody who is worried about their consumption of alcohol to reach out and seek help at the earliest possible opportunity.
Alcohol labelling, which is what we are largely discussing this evening, is an important part of the overall work on reducing alcohol-related harms. The Government believe that people have the right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and the health risks that may be associated with it, to enable them to make informed choices about their drinking and what they consume. As people return to socialising and drinking this summer, it is increasingly important that they are educated not just about alcohol and its harms, but about how they can enjoy alcohol responsibly and have fun with other people in a manner that saves on some of the other costs of drinking too much.
The UK chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines were published back in 2016. The intention is to help people understand the risks that alcohol might pose to an individual’s health and to make decisions about consumption in the light of those risks. The guidelines are based on evidence of risk and benefit, including the most up-to-date international and UK-specific data. The guidelines give a clear recommendation to limit alcohol intake to 14 units a week, to limit daily intake to reduce immediate risk, and not to drink if pregnant or planning to become pregnant due to the effect on the unborn child.
Over the past years, we have worked with the alcohol industry to ensure that alcohol labels reflect the UK CMO low-risk drinking guidelines, and the industry has committed to comply with that requirement. We are monitoring, carefully and closely, the progress that is being achieved. The British Retail Consortium—I would like to congratulate it on this—led the way in this area, with most own brands, such as Marks & Spencer and Aldi, now displaying the CMO guidelines. That shows that it can be done and that some are doing it. We were also pleased that in 2019 the Portman Group, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and its members committed to include the guidelines on their products. We fully  appreciate that the pandemic has delayed those plans and that the hospitality industry has been severely impacted, but I would like to think that we can now refocus. I am really looking forward to seeing rapid progress and top premium brands increasingly displaying the guidance on their labels. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Portman Group acts as the socially responsible element of the industry, and what can be more socially responsible than helping to educate people so they can make an informed decision?
Post covid, we know that more must be done to look after our health. However, making healthier decisions without all the information is actually quite a challenge. For people to make informed decisions about the drinks they are purchasing, they need to be able to understand what is in that product and what it means for their health. We know that excessive alcohol consumption can be a contributing factor to obesity. I think the hon. Gentleman totted up the daily figures I am going to give and rounded them up to a week’s worth of figures, which equated to an extra day’s calories. Adults, on average, consume 200 to 300 extra calories per day. Of those who drink, 7% to 8% of that calorie intake comes from alcohol, because it is highly calorific. However, the evidence shows that the public, as he articulated, are largely unaware of those invisible calories. Many adults cannot accurately estimate the calorie content of an alcoholic product.
In 2019, less than half of alcohol brands provided calorie information on labels, so as part of the Government’s latest obesity strategy we are committed to consult on the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol and alcohol sold in the on-trade sector. We hope that the provision of calorie labelling on alcohol will encourage reformulation, because there are market opportunities for lower-calorie versions that will further help adults to reduce their calorie intake from alcohol. This consultation will be launched very shortly.
The Portman Group, as I said, is the social responsibility body and regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and promotion. It operates its codes of practice to ensure that alcohol is marketed in a socially responsible way only to those of 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal to those who are particularly vulnerable to its appeal. The codes are supported throughout the industry, with over 150 code signatories, including producers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and their trade associations. I am absolutely committed, as are colleagues across Government, to working with the industry to address concerns over irresponsible labelling, packaging and promotion allied to labelling, and the concerns that the industry has, because I am sure that it is much easier if everybody is doing a similar thing, and then people can easily and swiftly find the information that they need, as the hon. Gentleman laid out.

Dan Carden: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Churchill: My goodness—stereo!

Dan Carden: As we know of the increasing harms from alcohol across society, which are slightly different from what will be covered in the addiction strategy, and there has been an increased focus on the drug strategy,  does the Minister see the argument now for a proper review and strategy to deal with increasing alcohol harms across society?

Jo Churchill: Now is a great time to focus on making sure that we enable people to make the healthier choice as the default choice, and that we work to ensure that people have the right information for them. All I am willing to say at this stage is that nothing is off the table. There are a lot of strategies. Rather than making any blanket statement, the important job now is to refocus and to deliver on some of the commitments that we would like to see, and to make sure that the consultation is rolled out so that we can have that dialogue and make sure that we are doing the right thing for individuals but also across the industry.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for outlining very clearly a strategy to address the issues that the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Minister, I know that it is not technically your responsibility, but I think perhaps—

Eleanor Laing: No, please, the hon. Gentleman cannot disappoint me like this. He cannot say “you” to the Minister.

Jim Shannon: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. One massive issue has been the promotion of drink at cheap prices so that people can get drunk cheaper. Would the Minister be sympathetic to discussing this issue with the industry—the Portman Group has been referred to—to try to address it?

Jo Churchill: I think the hon. Gentleman refers to minimum unit pricing. As I say, we are refocusing on making sure that we are having a broad range of discussions. As he pointed out at the beginning of his intervention, this is not something that sits within my responsibility. However, I have heard, and I am sure others have heard, his plea for that work, which does go on in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Alcohol labelling is one part of wide-ranging cross-Government work to address alcohol-related health harms and their impact on life chances. The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable at risk from alcohol misuse. We have an existing agenda on tackling alcohol-related harms, including an ambitious programme to establish specialist alcohol care teams in the worst-affected 25% of hospitals, because I do recognise some of the challenges within the workforce that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned. We continue to support the children of alcohol-dependent parents—a situation that wreaks such havoc.
As part of the prevention Green Paper, we are committed to increasing the general drinking population’s direction of travel towards lower-strength alternatives when they have moderate drinking habits. We are working with the industry and other stakeholders to create more consumer choice and availability in the low-alcohol and no-alcohol sector. They are often very palatable alternatives, particularly for those who are driving or who may have a reason to want a clear head the following morning. The more choice that we can give people in that area, the better.
The Government have committed to publishing a new, UK-wide cross-Government addiction strategy that considers the full range of issues, including drugs, alcohol and problem gambling. While each of those comes with its own set of issues—as the hon. Gentleman said, the second part of Dame Carol Black’s review is due shortly—there is also much common ground and many benefits to tackling addiction in a complete, comprehensive and joined-up way. The scope of the addiction strategy is still being developed, so I consider this debate and his calls most timely as we consider what more can be done to protect people from those alcohol-related harms.
I emphasise the Government’s commitment to ensuring that alcohol labels provide the information that people need to make informed choices about the products that they are purchasing. I stress, probably for my husband and children mostly, that we are not saying, “You can’t enjoy a drink.” What we are saying very clearly is that we would like to encourage the nation’s drinking to be responsible, and to help people not to be one of those statistics that wreck lives.
We believe that people have the right to accurate information to help them to make decisions about the products that they purchase, and we are committed to ensuring that the labelling on alcohol provides that. Progress has been made in relation to the UK CMO’s low-risk drinking guidelines and other information on alcohol products, but we are not complacent. We will continue to actively monitor the position and keep it under review, and ensure that we level up so that people, no matter what drink they choose, can get accurate information from the product.
We await the consultation to ensure that we take everyone with us, because it is important that we do things in a measured but directed way in order to bring the benefits to the most people. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for introducing this Adjournment debate and for everything that we have discussed. Let us hope that we can get there.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Anthony Mangnall


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Antony Higginbotham


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Mark Harper


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore